Comment on Anaphes Haliday, 1833 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed designation of A. fuscipennis Haliday, 1833 as the type species (Case 3554: see BZN 68: 122-126; 69: 140)

摘要

Opinion 71, relevant to Case 3554, was not included in the submission when it should have been (the senior author of Case 3554 was unaware of Opinion 71 when it was submitted for publication). In Opinion 71 (Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 73: 16-18, 1922) the Commission ruled that the species cited by Westwood (1840) as 'typical species' were to be accepted as definite designations of genotypes for the respective genera. The implication is that in addition to setting aside Opinion 729, as requested in Case 3554, Opinion 71 must also be set aside to clear the way for the Commission to vote on the proposed change in types species. The present Comment is submitted to address that important omission by adding item (1) in the list of actions requested of the Commission. It is worth stating that Gahan & Fagan (1923, p. 12), who noted both type species designations for Anaphes but did not select one in preference to the other， may yet not have been aware of Opinion 71， as it was published only a year earlier. Subsequent authors mentioned and referenced in Case 3554 also did not mention Opinion 71, though some of them explicitly favoured changing the type species of Anaphes to the only species originally described in the genus, namely, A. fuscipennis Haliday. In light of Opinion 71, their treatment of A. fuscipennis as type species of Anaphes is thereby given much less import. Their thoughts on the type species of Anaphes were not totally irrelevant, however, because they indicate the rather strong feelings of those involved in taxonomy of mymaridae that punctum was not the most suitable choice for type species of Anaphes.