Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 57(1) March 2000 43 instead of Bulimus. However, he could have followed Broderip (1828, Zoological Journal, part 4, p. 222) in substituting Bulimis for Bulimus Scopoli, 1777. In the latter case Bulinus sensu Sowerby (1853), i.e. Bulinus Broderip, 1828, is a different genus from Bulinus sensu Mandahl-Barth (1954), i.e. Bulinus O.F. Miiller, 1781; Article 57.8.1 of the Code applies and the homonymy of the species names is to be disregarded. As this contention is difficult or impossible to prove, it might be best for the Commission to rule that Sowerby (1853) made a clerical error, writing Bulinus for Bulimus, and that there exists no primary homonymy between Sowerby and Mandahl-Barth's species names. (2) D.S. Brown, F. Naggs and V.R. Southgate Department of Zoology. The Natural History Museum. Cromwell Road. London SW7 5BD. U.K. In his comment (above). Prof Holthuis has suggested that Sowerby (1853) misspelled Bulimus and wrote 'Bulinus" and that, under Article 57.8.1 of the Code, the homonymy between Bulinus wrightii Sowerby and Bulinus wrighti Mandahl-Barth is to be disregarded. This course would be acceptable if the two taxa named wrightii could be shown to have been placed in combination 'with homonymous generic names having the same spelling but established for different nominal genera'. This depends on whether the ACHATiNiDAE and the planorbidae are considered to be sufficiently different; though distinct they are both gastropod molluscs and clearly not so different as the Insecta and Aves in the example given in the Code. In submitting our application it seemed to us that, even if the homonymy could be disregarded, a worker was still likely to propose an unfortunate replacement name for Bulinus wrighti Mandahl-Barth, 1965 if the issue was not settled, and the name conserved, by Commission action. Comments on the proposed conservation of Polydora websteri Hartman in Loosanoff & Engle, 1943 (Annelida, Polychaeta) by a ruling that it is not to be treated as a replacement name for P. caeca Webster, 1879, and designation of a lectotype for P. websteri (Case 3080; see BZN 55: 212-216) (1) Geoffrey B. Read National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, 310 Evans Bay Parade, Kilbirnie, Wellington, New Zealand Hartman (1943) proposed the replacement name Polydora websteri for the invalid P. caeca of Webster (1879) (para. 4 of the application). I support the proposal to conserve P. websteri in accordance with Hartman's concept, and to designate a lectotype. Since the application by Radashevsky & Williams was published (BZN 55: 212-216, December 1998), Radashevsky (1999) has redescribed Hartman's original (1943) specimens, including the proposed lectotype. It is clear from Hartman's
Comments On The Proposed Conservation Of Polydora Websteri Hartman In Loosanoff & Engle, 1943 (Annelida, Polychaeta) By A Ruling That It Is Not To Be Treated As A Replacement Name For P. Caeca Webster, 1879, And Designation Of A Lectotype For P. Websteri
BioStor
