Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 183 cataloged as B. okellyim all the main collections, including those of the United States National Museum and the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard. In Europe B. okellyi was in use for 45 years until Disney (1982) introduced the name Borophaga subsultans in the phoridae, despite the long and extensive interpret-ation of subsultans as being a name in the sphaeroceridae (for over a century in Borborus and, after Richards (1930), in Sphaewcera). He did this only on the basis of the Linnean Society specimen, which may or may not be original. Disney argues that the major recent literature in Europe (his own publications) uses B. subsultans and that further change should be avoided. We must weigh a European change versus a North American change. Since okellyi has been in the European phorid literature for 32 years longer than subsultans I prefer Borophaga okellyi as the valid name of this species. There remains, too, the fact that most literature references to subsultans are in the sphaerocerid sense. Additional references Borgmeier, T. 1963. Revision of the North American phorid flies. Part 1. The Phorinae, the Aenigmatiinae and Metopininae. except Megaseliu. Sludia Eiuomologica. 6: 1-256. Schmitz, H. & Beyer, E. 1965. Family Phoridae. In Stone. A., Sabrosky, C.W.. Wirth. W.W., Foote, R.H. & Coulson, J.R. (Eds.), A catalog of the Diptera of America North of Mexico. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Comment on the proposed conservation of Hydromantes Gistel, 1848 (Amphibia, Caudata) by the designation of Salamandra genei Temminck & Schlegel, 1838 as the type species (Case 2868; see BZN 50: 219-223; 51: 149-153) Alain Dubois Laboratoire des Reptiles et Amphibiens. Museum national d'Histoire naturelle. 25 rue Cuvier. 75005 Paris, France 1. A rapid reading of the comments published in BZN 51: 149-153 may give an impression of simple universal agreement among their authors for the proposal by Smith & Wake (BZN 50: 219-223). Careful reading shows that this impression would be wrong. In fact the comments can be classed in two groups. Some express the view that the name Hydromantes should be maintained in the sense understood by Dunn (1923), i.e. for the European species Hydromantes italicus Dunn, 1923, Salamandra geneiTemminck & Schlegel, 1838, and species considered to be congeneric with them. This view does not infringe taxonomic freedom: it leaves individual biologists free to decide whether related American species should be placed in the same genus or whether they should be in a distinct genus, of which the valid name is Hydroman-toides Lanza & Vanni, 1981 (type species Spelerpes platycephalus Camp, 1916). 2. The second attitude is very different. It is based on the view that the American species should not be placed in a separate genus, and that the name Hydromantes should be retained for both them and the European species for which the valid name Speleomantes Dubois, 1984 exists. According to this view neither Hydromantoides nor Speleomcmtes are acceptable names. We are here far from the basic principle that the Code should never restrict 'the freedom of taxonomic thought or action"
BioStor
