272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) Deceinber 1999 I have been working and have published on several of the taxa mentioned by the authors of Case 3061; I fully support their conclusions and application and recommend that the Commission accepts their proposals. However, I note two minor mistakes. The first is only a detail, and the second is remedied by a lectotype designation which contributes to the nomenclatural stability within this group. Ng et al. write (paras. 2 and 4 of their application) that Bagrus pkmiceps Valenciennes, 1840 was described from two specimens collected by Kuhl and van Hasselt. I assume this was based on Valenciennes's remark 'nous en avons vu de quatre et de huit pouces de longueur', but this could encompass more than two specimens; Valenciennes clearly stated that there was one specimen in Paris and others in Leiden, and this is corroborated by the present holdings of those museums (see para. 4 of the application). This detail does not change anything about the need for a lectotype designation for B. planiceps, as made by the authors in para. 10 of the application. Ng et al. also write in paras. 2 and 4 that Bcigrus anisunis Valenciennes, 1840 was based on a single specimen, i.e. a holotype. I disagree. The description starts [in translation] 'Messrs Kuhl and van Hasselt have had a third bagre painted in Java, of which they have sent samples [plural] to the museum in Leiden etc.". Valenciennes did write in the account of the species 'The individual which we have described is 14 inches long', but the specimens in Leiden were included in the species and are therefore syntypes. Furthermore, the description ends 'In the liquor [alcohol], it appears pale brown on the back, and whitish grey under the belly; but when fresh as in the figure, the whole upper part is olivaceous", and there is no reason to suppose that both parts of this sentence refer to a single specimen painted when fresh and then preserved and now in Paris. In line with the argument by Ng et al. that the names of the nominal species now in Hemihagrus should be defined, I here designate the specimen NNM 2956 in Paris as the lectotype of Bagrits anisunis Valenciennes, 1840; this is the specimen assumed by Ng et al. to be the holotype. As stated at the outset, I support the proposals in the application by Ng et al. Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Varanus teriae Sprackland, 1991 (Reptilia, Squamata) (Case 3043; see BZN 54: 100-103; 250-251; 55: 37-39, 111-114) (1) H.G. Cogger do The Australian Museum. 6 College Street, Sydney South. New South Wales 2000. Australia Rather belatedly I wish to comment on this application, submitted by Profs R.G. Sprackland and H.M. Smith and Dr P.D. Strimple in BZN 54: 100-103 (June 1997). Although the "Code of Ethics" (Appendix A in both the 3rd and 4th editions of the Code) and many of the Code's important Recommendations were blatantly flouted in the Wells & Wellington ( 1 985a) work at the core of this case, leading many workers to reject all or part of the publication, the Code of Ethics and Recommendations are not mandatory. The Commission noted (BZN 48: 337-338, December 1991) that 'the provisions of the Code apply to all names directly and indirectly involved in this I
BioStor
