a catalog of the cecidomyiidae - Agricultural Research Service - US ...

5
names be spelled without a hyphen, that name is now properly written as bigeloviaestrobiloides. The name proposed as
Cecidomyia pini inopis Osten Sacken 1862 is considered valid with the original author and date, now as piniinopis,
because, although the name was actually two separate words, it referred to a single entity, i.e., the plant Pinus inops,
now Pinus virginiana.
The fourth edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 1999 added a new provision (Article
23.9) for upsetting precedence of names when certain senior names have not been used as valid names after 1899. This
unfortunate provision neither fosters nor rewards thorough scholarship and implies that an occasional new name change
is too great a hardship for the scientific community to accommodate. Forgotten names are not so numerous and are
certainly finite. In my opinion it is better to leave a principle whole than devise a set of rules to undermine, or, as the
Code expresses it, "moderate" its application.
It did not take long for the new rule to be invoked in Cecidomyiidae, although not all its provisions were
followed. For example, Bland (2000) designated Cecidomyia rosarum Hardy 1850 as senior synonym of the earlier
Cecidomyia rosae Bremi 1847 (now in Dasineura), considering C. rosae a forgotten name or nomen oblitum. Unnoted
by Bland was that Hardy (1854f) himself synonymized his rosarum under rosae Bremi. Also, the name rosae Bremi
was used in Gagné 1972b, so it was not a forgotten name. Bland did not meet the conditions in the Code for designating
rosae a nomen oblitum. It is the responsibility of the designator to give evidence that the younger name, the name to be
preserved, has been cited in the literature as a valid name in at least 25 works published by at least 10 authors in the
immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years. These strictures appear to be
written so that the new rule would apply only to species of considerable significance. Inasmuch as these conditions are
not met in this case, I am replacing the older name as senior synonym. Rule 23.10 of the Code states that if an action is
erroneous, the matter is to be referred to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The onus in such a
case as this, then, is unfairly placed on the challenger and not the proposer.
During the preparation of this catalog several names from the 1700s and 1800s surfaced that had been unused
since originally proposed. Most of them have seniority over other names for the same species and are accordingly used
as senior names here because the tests of the rules for designating them nomina oblita do not apply.
SUBFAMILY CATOTRICHINAE
CATOTRICHA
Catotricha Edwards 1938e: 102. Type species, Catocha americana Felt (orig. des.).
Holarctic; 5 spp. Ref.: Jaschhof 2001a (rev.).
americana. USA (New Hampshire).
Catocha americana Felt 1908b: 309. USA: New Hampshire, Franconia; HT; ♂; USNM.
marinae. Russia (Western Siberia).
Catotricha marinae Mamaev 1985: 24. Russia: Tuva, Ishtii-Khem; HT; ♀; HYNM.
nipponensis. Japan (Honshu).
Catocha nipponensis Alexander 1924: 83. Japan: Honshu, Osaka Pref., Mt Minomo, Settsu-no-kuni; HT; ♂; USNM.
Catotricha antennata Alexander 1959: 39. Japan: Honshu, Akigami, On-take, Shinano-Hida; HT; ♂; USNM.
subobsoleta. USA (Washington, California).
Catocha subobsoleta Alexander 1924: 82. USA: Washington, Mt Rainier, Longmire Springs; HT; ♂; USNM.
subterranea. Russia (Far East).
Catotricha subterranea Mamaev 1985: 25. Russia: Primorskiï Terr., Ussuriyskiï Res.; HT; ♀; HYNM.
*MESOTRICHOCA
Mesotrichoca Jaschhof & Jaschhof 2008: 58. Type species, Catotricha mesozoica Kovalev (orig. des.).
Sediment fossil, Upper Jurassic/Lower Cretaceous of Siberia (Russia); 1 sp.