Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Anathyris monstrum Khalfin, 1933 (currently Anathyrella monstrum; Brachiopoda, Athyridida) (Case 3632) 5

Alvarez and Modzalevskaya have submitted a proposal for the conservation of the
specific name Anathyrella monstrum. I support their proposal for the following
reasons:

(1) Khalfin (1933a) designated no holotype for A. monstrum or its two varieties
and no subsequent author has proposed any lectotype or neotype. Khalfin
thought about naming them as two different species but did not do so formally.

(2) Varietal names were proposed for A. monstrum but the availability of the
subspecific names that he proposed is not affected by their representing various
life stages of an organism.

(3) The names ‘rotundata’ and ‘mucronata’ have been ignored by subsequent
authors as noted in paragraph 4 of their application.

(4) There has been no designation of a name-bearing type for A. monstrum. Thus
its type series consists of syntypes.

(5) Alvarez & Modzalevskaya argue correctly, in my opinion, that the ambiguity
in the three names monstrum, rotundata and mucronata can best be resolved by
accepting their proposal (see paragraph 7 of their application).