As regards the objections raised by Demirjian (BZN 69: 141–142) to the proposal to replace the fragmentary and non-diagnostic holotype of Megadactylus polyzelus Hitchcock, 1865, the type species of Anchisaurus Marsh, 1885, with a diagnostic neotype, an almost complete skull and skeleton (YPM 1883, holotype of Anchisaurus colurus Marsh, 1891), it should be noted that:
I support the Angus et al. (BZN 69: 29–36) proposal to set aside Wilson’s (2001)
designation of a lectotype for Scarabaeus fimetarius Linnaeus, 1758. But I oppose
their proposal for the designation as neotype of a specimen that does not belong to
Linnaeus’ type material. For the reasons presented below, nomenclatural stability
and universality will be best served by the designation of one of the now paralectotypes
(see below) as the name-bearing type of Scarabaeus fimetarius Linnaeus, 1758.
1. The identity of Aphodius foetens (Fabricius, 1787)
I support the application by Angus et al. (BZN 69: 29–36). Provided that the
discovery of a cryptic species within Aphodius fimetarius s.l. by C.J. Wilson was made
on the basis of chromosomal analysis, and that morphological differences between
the two species are subtle and subject to some degree of variability and overlapping,
the most prudent approach to the problem is the designation of a neotype with a
karyotype, rather than using historical material, which could prove to be insufficient
With regard to Case 3579 it is a delicate situation that requires setting aside original Linnean material, but the special circumstances of the case warrant such an approach. Several other authors have written in support of Angus et al.’s (BZN 69: 29–36) suggestion to designate a neotype for Aphodius fimetarius (L.) and have covered all aspects of this suggestion in such detail that there is nothing I can add that has not been said.