Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 149 Penndorf, H. 1951. Die Ceratiten-Schichten am Meissner in Niederhessen. Abhandlungen der Senckenhergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschafl, 484: 1-24. Schmidt, M. 1928. Die Lehewelt unserer Trias. 461 pp. Ohringen. Schrammen, A. 1 928. Die Losung des Ceratitenproblems. Zeitschrift der deutschen geologischen Gesellschafl. 80: 26-42. Wenger, R. 1957. Die Gennanischen Ceratiten. Palaeontographica (A), 108: 57-129. Comments on the proposed conservation of some generic names first proposed in Histoire abregee des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris (Geoffroy, 1762) (Case 2292; see BZN 48: 107-134; 49: 71-72) (1) Frank-Thorsten Krell Universitdt Tiibingen, Zoologisches Ins ti tut, Lehrstuhl Systematische Zoologie, Aufder Morgenstelle 28, D-W 7400 Tiibingen 1, Germany Before I became aware of Dr Kerzhner's proposals I had prepared an application for the conservation of Melolontha Fabricius, 1775, and I fully support his suggestions on BZN 48: 121 (para. K.18). As said by Pope (BZN 49: 71), it is unacceptable to give the authorship 'Miiller [or Geoffroy in Miiller], 1764' to names such as Melolontha regardless of their taxonomic sense. After Fourcroy ( 1 785) the name Melolontha was not used in Geoffroy's sense (i.e. in the CHRYSOMELiDAE) until Crotch (1870) and Des Gozis (1886, p. 33). The latter used Melolontha Geoffroy as the valid senior synonym of Clytra Laicharting, 1 78 1 , and proposed the new generic name Ludibrius instead of Melolontha Fabricius for the May beetle Scarabaeus melolontha Linnaeus, 1 758. Only Bedel followed the restoration of Melolontha Geoffroy, although in 1911 (p. 379) he abandoned Ludibrius for Hoplosternus, an unjustified emendation of Oplosternus, published by Guerin-Meneville (1838, p. 63) for the scarabaeid Melolontiia {Oplosternus) chinensis. The generic name Melolontha Fabricius, 1 775 for the May beetle M. melolontha is one of the commonest names in pure and applied entomology; Dalla Torre (1912) gave more than 13 pages of references. I am well acquainted with Lamellicornia names, and on the grounds of their common usage I support the conservation of Copris Geoffroy, 1 762 (Kerzhner's para. K.9) and Platycerus Geoffroy, 1 762 (para. K.23). I also agree with Kerzhner (para. A.4) that Geoffroy in Fourcroy is the correct authorship of the new specific names intro-duced in Fourcroy's 1785 Entomologia Parisiensis, as is pointed out by d'Aguilar & Raimbault(1990). Considering their usage the necessity to maintain many of Geoffroy's names is apparent. Their conservation with the authorship Geoffroy, 1762 as proposed by Kerzhner is a highly stabilizing act which will avoid any future confusion about many common generic names. Additional references Aguilar, J.d' & Raimbault, F. 1990. Notes de bibliographic entomologique. 3. Geoffroy, Fourcroy et TArticlc 5 1 du Code de Nomenclature. Entonwlogiste. 46: 37-40. Bedel, L. 1911. Synonomies de Scarahaeidae paiearctiques (Co!.). Bulletin de la Societe Entomologique de France, 1911: 377-381.
Comments On The Proposed Conservation Of Some Generic Names First Proposed In Histoire Abregee Des Insectes Qui Se Trouvent Aux Environs De Paris Geoffroy, 1762
BioStor
