Insecta: non-Coleoptera

I have read Jones’ (2007, 2008) (BZN 64: 83–86; 65: 47–49) proposal to conserve the junior specific names Microcerotermes serratus (Froggatt, 1898) for an Australian species and Microcerotermes serrula (Desneux, 1904) for a southeast Asian species, and Roisin & Pasteels’ (2000; 2007 BZN 64: 185–157) and Roisin’s (2008) argument to use the senior specific name Microcerotermes serratus (Haviland, 1898) for the Southeast Asian species and use the synonym Microcerotermes parviceps Mjöberg,

I am in complete agreement with the ideas proposed by T.A. Evans (this issue).

I have recently been advised that there is the potential for the Commissioners of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to vote against the conservation of the name Microcerotermes serratus (Froggatt, 1898). If this is the case, I believe that this will result in M. serratus becoming M. parviceps and the species M. serrula of Borneo now becoming M. serratus.

I have been following the ongoing debate on Case 3458 (BZN 65: 188–193). I have also had the opportunity to read an unpublished reply (now BZN 66: 349–351) by Robbins & Lamas to Craig’s comment (BZN 66: 271–272) on this case. I disagree with Craig’s interpretations and consider them incorrectly supported according to the meaning of Article 13.1 of the Code.