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 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 273 
[Wells & Wellington. 1985] case, and that it will be guided in future submissions by 
the criteria of usage, nomenclatural stability and the views of the zoological 
community which it serves'. 
Because both specific names of Odatria keithhornei Wells & Wellington, 1985 and 
Varumis teriae Sprackland, 1991 are young and both are in use, the choice of either 
name will not impact on stability or universality of nomenclature, and so there is no 
basis for invoking the plenary powers. Therefore the mandatory provisions of the 
Code should apply, with the senior synonym ( Varanus keithhornei) being confirmed 
as the valid name of the taxon. 
(2) R.G. Sprackland 
Young Forest Company, 951 Old County Road Suite 134. Bebnont. 
California 94002. U.S.A. 
H.M. Smith 
Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, 
University of Colorado. Boulder. Colorado 80309-0334. U.S.A. 
P.D. Strimple 
Reptile Research and Breeding Facilitv. 5310 Sultana Drive, Cincinnati. Ohio 45238, 
USA. 
In answer to previous comments on this case, we wish to reiterate that the second 
Wells & Wellington publication (1985a) was unobtainable via several libraries at the 
time (1982-1989) that one of us (R.G.S.) undertook revisionary work on the Varanus 
prasinus species group of monitor lizards. In our view this is more relevant than the 
fact that a few people had copies. We suspect that most copies were distributed after 
Sprackland's own (1991) publication. Why, otherwise, could no major hbrary 
provide either 1985 Wells & Wellington paper when he did his literature searches; did 
no museum have anything other than the 1983 Wells & Wellington publication; and 
did the Queensland Museum, who published Sprackland's paper (1991) after a 
number of alterations requested by reviewers, not inform him that a name for the 
tree monitor from northeastern Australia, based on specimen QMJ31566 in the 
Queensland Museum, had already been published? 
The choice of specific name for the tree monitor is between Varanus teriae, which 
is now eight years old, and V. keithhornei, now 14 years old. The synonymy between 
the two names was not realized until 1994. In the time that teriae has been published 
it has had considerable usage, which has continued since recognition of the synonymy 
(see para. 3 of the application; to the list of references may be added Rehak & 
Velensky, 1997). 
Cogger (above) seems to think that because both names are relatively recent 
stability is not at stake. He fails to realize the importance of his own works, which 
regularly used the junior of the two names, V. teriae. Stability is a product not only 
of frequency of usage but also of the influence thereof. Cogger's works are the most 
important guides for biologists in general to the herpetology of Australia, and 
thereby are of much more significance than little-noted, incidental usages. And there 
is where the weight of stability rests. 
274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 
In our view, and contrary to that of Drs T. Ziegler and W. Bohme (BZN 55: 1 12), 
the ability to use stable nomenclature for the inclusion of species and subspecies 
in CITES and other conservation legislative documentation is an important 
issue. Taxonomists are the servants of all those who use scientific names and work to 
serve those needs, not to establish an authority to which everyone must subscribe 
whether in accord with stability or not. We believe that our aim must be to provide 
an environment of nomenclatural stability in which biologists may work with 
confidence. 
Additional reference 
Reh^k, I. & Velensky, P. 1997. Biology of the varanids Vannjus prasinus. V. nidicollis and 
K sahadorii in captivity. Gazella, lA: 108-138. [In Czech; English summary]. 
Comment on the proposed suppression of all prior usages of generic and specific 
names of birds (Aves) by John Gould and others conventionally accepted as 
published in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 
(Case 3044; see BZN 54: 172-182; 55: 176-185) 
(1) Murray D. Bruce and Ian A.W. McAllan 
P.O. Box 180. Tunaimirra. New South Wales 2074. Australia 
We are the authors of the original paper under consideration as Case 3044. Various 
points covered by Schodde & Bock (1997). the comments of Olson (1998) and the 
response of Schodde & Bock (1998) [as cited above] require further comment. It 
should also be noted that our paper, although dated 1990, was published in 1991, as 
pointed out by McAllan (1992). 
1. Inconsistencies in the use of reports published in The Athenaeum, The Literary 
Gazette and The Analyst prompted our review of these serials. The first two were of 
considerable importance for many years as general sources of information covering 
the sciences and other fields. The third was a short-lived journal from the 1830s and 
one of several from this period affecting zoological nomenclature. As an example of 
inconsistency, we pointed out that although The Athenaeum is accepted for Balaeni- 
ceps rex (a very brief but adequate description) in a standard work (Kahl, 1979), there 
were other names variously mentioned or overlooked, with equal claims to priority. 
Also, we deplored the proposal for suppression of a name from The Literary Gazette 
without the actual reference being examined (LeCroy, 1988; LeCroy & Bock, 1989), 
an action invalid for other reasons, as we discussed (Bruce & McAllan, 1991). 
2. The latter example prompted us to provide verbatim extracts of the relevant 
references in our paper to facilitate an evaluation of our findings and to avoid the 
argument of the rarity or inaccessibility of the sources (a pointless criticism in view 
of the rarity and inaccessibility of many sources long accepted in avian nomencla- 
ture). We found hundreds of nomina nuda in our investigations but only discussed 
those names identifiable by descriptive details. For example, we did not discuss 
/)[wor«w]. dromaeoides because it is a nomen nudum in The Literary Gazette. The 
only nomen nudum we did discuss was Sitta ferrugineoveniris in The Athenaeum