326 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature MALLOPHAGAN NAMES OF DE GEER, 1778 ; PROPOSED ADDITION TO OFFICIAL LISTS. Z.N.(S.) 1400 By G. H. E. Hopkins and Theresa Clay British Museum (Natural History), Tring and London Since we find ourselves compelled to ask for recognition of a neotype for almost every nominal species of Mallophaga mentioned in the course of this and other appeals we are making to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, we think it desirable to explain the special circumstances which make this unavoidable. With almost no exceptions, the tjrpes of all nominal species of Mallophaga described before the end of the eighteenth century are lost, if they were ever preserved ; many of the names published by Linnaeus in 1758, for instance, were based on drawings published by Red! in 1668, while none of the species described by De Geer in 1778 is represented by specimens in his collection at Stockholm. Further the almost total destruction during the second world war of the Halle Collection, containing the t3rpes of very many species described by Nitzsch and his successors, has extended this loss to cover the types of the vast majority of all species described prior to 1880 with the exception of those contained in the relatively small Denny Collection in the British Museum. In a high proportion of instances the nominal species covered by these pre-1880 descriptions are composite, and in no instance is it possible to recognize beyond doubt what species is meant in the absence of a type. It is, therefore, essential to designate neotypes if the names are to be apphed with precision. All the neotypes mentioned in this appUcation are in the British Museum (Natural History). 2. De Geer (1778, Mem. Hist. Ins. 7 : 69-81, pi. 4, figs. 5-16) pubUshed a description of one genus and descriptions and figures of seven species of Mallophaga. The generic name (Eicinus) has been in use by students of Mallophaga since 1906 and in almost universal use since 1916 ; of the specific names, two are regarded as junior synonyms but the remaining five are all in current use and two of them refer to species of veterinary importance. The question has now been raised, however, whether De Geer's Mem. Hist. Ins. is an available work, since it has been claimed (see, e.g., Hottes, 1954, Bull, zool. Nomencl. 9 : 166-173) that this book is not binominal. We do not wish to discuss this claim here, but we feel that the names given by De Geer to Mallophaga must be dealt with apart from the question of the availabihty of his work because of a special difficulty about the section of volume 7 in which all the Mallophagan names are contained. In all other portions of the volume the names and descriptions are in such form as (: 50) " Termes (destructor) alhidum, capite luteo, antennis filiformis, alterius maxillis longitudine anten-narum ", where the second word, differentiated by being printed in Roman type and enclosed in brackets, is obviously the specific name. In the section containing the Mallophaga (: 69-81) the second word is not enclosed in brackets nor printed in Roman type, but in each of the seven instances it is in a form which suggests that De Geer intended it for a specific name ; each is based on one or both of the components of the binominal name of the host species, and £xM. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 17, pts. 9-11. September 1960.