Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 271 distorted animal, and that it was actually a specimen of the species known to him as Alona rosiraia (Koch, 1841), which he dealt with and illustrated in the same paper (P.E. Muller, 1867, pp. 182-183). It is perfectly clear that had Miiller known the teratological nature of this individual he would not have erected a new genus and species for its reception. On the contrary, had he known this, without the least difficulty he would have identified this problematic individual as the species well known to him as A. rostrata. This means that Phri.xura is a junior synonym oi Alona Baird. 1843. The creation of the new genus Phri.xura was based on an unfortunate error. It is not in accord with the Code to support such a lapsus, especially when it concerns a species {rostraia) that has been internationally recognised as valid for more than 130 years since its publication. 2. The name Phri.xura was never used for more than 120 years and cannot be employed on the basis of nomenclatural usage unless special grounds are put forward, which is not the case. 3. As noted in para. 6 of the application, Michael & Frey (1984) expressly referred to Phri.xura recliro.stris as a synonym of Disparalona rostrata, and clearly stated that it 'is an abnormal specimen of D. rostrata'. I can only fully and entirely agree. In no way, however, can I agree with Frey's later (1989) change to adopt the name Phri.xura. This is a classic case of how a rigid, literal interpretation of the Code led to a completely unprofitable and harmful introduction of an unused name. 4. Given this state of affairs (paras. 1-3 above), I wish to protest that it is not a trifling matter to ignore the significance of the fact that the name Disparalona Fryer, 1968 has been in unambiguous and common use for about 30 years among specialists familiar with this group of animals (cf. Grygier's comment on BZN 55: 105, June 1998). 5. A morphologically comprehensive presentation and description of the taxon concerned were given by Michael & Frey (1984) under the name of Disparalona rostrata. It would be an irresponsible destabilisation of the nomenclature used for this species should Phri.xura rostrata be adopted. Such a measure would stand in contradiction to the spirit and intention of the Code as clearly stated in the Preamble and Article 23b of the 1985 edition (Article 23.2 in that of 1999). 6. All decisive points, which unambiguously speak for a rejection of the name Phri.xura P.E. Muller, 1867, have been convincingly set out by Fryer in Case 2990. I have nothing to add to them and stand fully and entirely behind the application. 7. In 1972 in the Tierwelt Deutschlands series I used the name Disparalona rostrata for the branchiopod in question (para. 7 of the application). In a new taxonomic monograph of the Cladocera of Central Europe, to appear in the year 2000, 1 will also be employing this name for the taxon since this is manifestly in the interest of nomenclatural stability. Comment on the proposed designation of a single neotype for Hemibagrus nemurus (Valenciennes, 1840) (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes) and H. sieboldii (Bleeker, 1846), and of the lectotype of H. planiceps (Valenciennes, 1840) as a neotype for H. flavus (Bleeker, 1846) (Case 3061; see BZN 56: 34-^1, 200-201) Maurice Kottelat Route de la Baroche 12. Case postale 57, CH-2952 Cornol. Switzerland
Comment On The Proposed Designation Of A Single Neotype For Hemibagrus Nemurus (Valenciennes, 1840) (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes) And H. Sieboldii (Bleeker, 1846), And Of The Lectotype Of H. Planiceps
BioStor
