Comments on the proposed conservation of Termes serratus Froggatt, 1898 and Termes serrula Desneux, 1904 (Insecta, Isoptera, TERMITINAE) 2 (Case 3385)

Jones (BZN 65: 47–49) found additional publications mentioning the junior names Microcerotermes serratus (Froggatt, 1898) or Microcerotermes serrula(Desneux, 1904). For M. serratus (Froggatt), these records bring the number of such citations over 10, by more than 5 different authors, in the period 1950–1999. Jones argues that for these reasons, the criteria of Article 79(c) of the 3rd edition of the Code, current at the time we submitted our paper (Roisin & Pasteels, 2000), were met. We considered that the criteria of Article 79(c) were mere guidelines to evaluate what constituted a threat to stability, but by no means strict decisional rules. We did not carry out a comprehensive survey of the literature to find out whether the total number of publications citing M. serratus(Froggatt) during the past 50 years was just below or just above 10. We determined that the number and current flow of such publications was very low, and that several of them did not carry any primary information but were only brief citations of earlier work (e.g. Grassé (1982) just cited Gay (1952); a single observation of damage to railway sleepers resulted in three citations: Perry et al. (1985), Watson & Gay (1991) and Barnacle et al. (1992). The only data about M. serratus (Froggatt) that appear plentiful are distributional records (Watson & Abbey, 1993). However, the status of colonies or populations identified as M. serratus (Froggatt) has long been uncertain: Watson & Abbey (1993, p. 5) acknowledged that ‘extensive work on further series will be needed before the complexities of, e.g. M. distinctus and M. serratus can be unravelled’. In a similar way, Perry et al. (1985, p. 75) wrote ‘M. serratus is a very variable species (Hill, 1942), and may constitute a species-complex; its occurrence in the extreme south-west is open to doubt’. In addition, the lectotype of Termes serratusFroggatt has been lost (Watson et al., 1998, p. 232). Thus there is already some confusion as to the identity of M. serratus (Froggatt) itself, and it is likely that a future revision of Australian Microcerotermes would, in any case, imply the reassignment of some of the data presently attributed to this species.
  As to M. serratus (Haviland), it is incorrect to state that this name has never been used between Holmgren (1911) and Roisin & Pasteels (2000). Harris (1966, p. 13) mentioned Termes serratus Haviland as currently in Microcerotermeswithout further comment, whereas in the same paper (p. 15), for another of Haviland’s (1898) species, Termes latifrons, he added ‘n. praeocc. Nasutitermes havilandi Desn.’, thus acknowledging the renaming of this species by Desneux (1904). Harris (1966) thus considered Microcerotermes serratus (Haviland) as a valid combination. As to the use of M. serrula (Desneux), it has been mostly limited to catalogues or faunal lists, and the biology of his species remains virtually unknown.
  Jones (BZN 65: 48) is concerned that new researchers starting to work on termites in either Southeast Asia or Australia would not consult our paper (Roisin & Pasteels, 2000) because its title solely mentions New Guinea and the Solomons. It has however long been established that the New Guinean insect fauna shows strong affinities with both southeast Asian and Australian faunas (e.g. Gressitt, 1982). Considering a priori a revisionary paper on the New Guinean species of a genus as irrelevant to the identification and nomenclature of southeast Asian or Australian species of the same genus is hazardous. It is not because Jones and some of his co-workers overlooked our paper (Roisin & Pasteels, 2000) and kept citing Microcerotermes serrula (Desneux) several years after we established its invalidity that subsequent authors will necessarily do the same.
  In addition, Jones (BZN 65: 48) considers it likely that because the few existing monographs on southeast Asian termites (Thapa, 1981; Tho, 1992) make use of the junior names, future researchers will inevitably continue to do so, even if the Commission decides to maintain the senior names. We do not endorse this contemptuous attitude towards the Commission’s Opinions: we do believe they will be implemented. In the present case, the number of people currently involved in research with southeast Asian or Australian Microcerotermes, and who would perhaps have to change habits, is ridiculously low. As to future researchers, it will probably not take more than one updated catalogue to convince them to use the correct names. Insisting on the strict application of the Principle of Priority when a junior name is being used more than its senior synonym (or homonym) always creates some confusion. However, we believe it is necessary to do so as long as the resulting confusion is of minor importance. Otherwise, the Principle of Priority will lose its authoritative power. Authors might consider that nomenclatural rules are unimportant because improper use of names can always be ultimately validated by the Commission. This is what we call ‘nomenclatural anarchy’. Jones’s application is an attempt to have anarchic behaviour endorsed.

Additional references

Gressitt, J.L. 1982. Zoogeographical summary. Pp. 897–918 in Gressitt, J.L. (Ed.), Biogeography and Ecology of New Guinea, vol. 2. Dr W. Junk Publishers, The Hague.
Harris, W.V. 1966. Type localities of the Isoptera described by Haviland.Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London, 177: 11–17.