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,
You are here
I have carefully read Jones’s proposal in conjunction with the arguments of Roisin & Pasteels (2000); BZN 64: 185–187 and Roisin (2008). I have also studied the argument put forward by Theodore A. Evans in support of Jones’s case (this issue). My conclusion is that I wish to fully support the views of both Jones and Evans, by strongly recommending that the specific names Microcerotermes serratus (Froggatt) and Microcerotermes serrula (Desneux) be conserved.
I am in complete agreement with the ideas proposed by T.A. Evans (this issue).
It is now clear that the names M. parviceps and M. serratus (Haviland) have been essentially forgotten since their descriptions until rediscovered by Roisin & Pasteels, whereas M. serratus (Froggatt) and M. serrula have been used in significant literature in the Asian and Australian regions.
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.
This is a reply to the comment by Craig (BZN 66: 271–272) on Case 3458.
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 I have also had the opportunity to read an unpublished reply (now BZN 66: 349–351) by Robbins & Lamas to Craig’s comment (BZN 66: 271–272) on this case.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.
This comment is sent for the purpose of offering complete support for the conservation of the taxon Lycaena florus and the designation of a (new) neotype for the taxon occasionally known as Lycaena castro.
Dr James A. Scott has presented a very fine, detailed case for this position and I will not attempt to condense, repeat, or elaborate on his statements, but I will state that I completely and wholeheartedly support his position on this matter.