A Catalogue of the Muscidae (Diptera) of the Neotropical Region

(203–205) Proposals to require initial lowercase letters for specific and infraspecific epithets, to permit tautonyms non‐retroactively, and to use consistent language in Articles 20.1 and 23.2

The motivations for describing species are multifaceted and extend beyond the scientific disciplines, promoting public engagement and enhancing biodiversity communication. We delve into the practices of naming species of Rotifera, Diplostraca (= Cladocera) and Copepoda, underpinning the effects of time, taxon group and the lengths of genus names on the length of specific names. Our investigation revolves around a comprehensive dataset comprising 6319 names described between 1758 and 2021 of Rotifers, Cladocera and Copepoda. The overall annual average hovers around a mean length of slightly over 10 and 8 letters, respectively, for genus names and specific names, although it varied noticeably across taxa. Notably, our findings reveal no substantial temporal variation in the length of specific names over the years of description. We found a positive although not significant relationship between the length of specific and genus names, suggesting that longer genus names may influence the choice of longer specific names. We support the recommendation by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and existing related publications on this topic, to prioritize short names, emphasizing the importance of concise and ultimately the use of mnemonic names assigned to zooplankton species.

Anton Meyer's monograph of the Acanthocephala in Bronn's Tierreichs (1932-1933) is the only publication which contains a comprehensive treatment of the acanthocephalan fauna of the world. It is therefore an indispensable source of information on the hosts and the geographical distribution of the individual species of this group of parasitic worms. At the conclusion of the description of each species Meyer has usually cited the names of all hosts recorded by earier writers and in many instances he has inserted new host records based upon his own studies. In some few instances, family or common group names are cited in the taxonomic text instead of generic or specific names. Summarizing the information on hosts given in the taxonomic section and often supplementing with names of hosts not included in the text, Meyer has compiled a section (pages 340 to 379) in which the families and genera of hosts are arranged phylogenetically for each class or other large unit of the hosts. For each genus of hosts all of the species known to harbor Acanthocephala are listed and for each a presumably complete list of the species of its Acanthocephala is given. This section is of inestimable value to the students of Acanthocephala as well as to all those who are interested in the biology of any given group of animals which these worms parasitiZe. For some unknown reason, not all of the names included in the taxonomic treatment of the individual species of the parasites are included in this collated list of hosts and likewise many generic and specific names of hosts cited in this section are not found in the body of the text. This discrepancy is in part explained by the fact that the section which lists the hosts taxonomically was prepared later than the main body of the specific descriptions. In the earlier part, Meyer often cited the names of hosts as they appeared in the literature. Later, when he prepared the analytical list of hosts, he corrected many of the names that had been used earlier, added other records which had come to his attention and incorporated the unpublished results of his own studies. Although the monograph is provided with three separate indices, no one of these includes the names of hosts. To the general student, who is not thoroughly familiar with the taxonomic and phylogenetic arrangements for all groups of the animal kingdom, it often becomes a time-consuming procedure to locate the name of a given host in the host summary. Accurate scanning of a list several pages in length to detect a given generic name for a host is rendered difficult by the fact that the same type is used for host nanmes as for the list of acanthocephalan species slightly indented beneath it. The writer has spent so much time thumbing through his own copy of the 417

Having just had an opportunity to peruse Dr. Donk's article (4) on the conservation of generic names, I am moved to make a few remarks on what may be considered an already threadbare subject. However, as long as a few curious people, even in time of war, persist in pursuing and naming the lowly fungi and cannot seem to agree on any simple and rational method of choosing their names, perhaps further discussion may be justified. In recent years considerable progress has been made by international botanists toward the stabilization of generic and specific names. The type method of fixing such names has been generally adopted and also the conservation of our common and well known generic names. The conservation of specific names seems equally desirable. It is being urged by some of our English colleagues and we hope it may be provided for in the next revision of the code. It has taken much time and effort to get these principles accepted. Our chief problem now is to find some more practical plan for selecting and typifying generic names. Many of us have apparently become so attached to the priority plan that it is difficult to give it up even in special cases. Before it was agreed to make exceptions to the almost sacred law of priority we could not agree on a starting point, and so long as we make priority the major principle in the choice of names, and in addition fix various dates for the starting points of various groups of fungi, we cannot hope to reach any great degree of uniformity or stability in the choice and application of names, even after a great amount of bibliographic and herbarium work under the most favorable library and herbarium facilities, has been carried out. That priority with its multiple starting points is the cause of much confusion and waste of time and effort in reaching any satisfactory conclusion by the present plan is most forcibly and convincingly illustrated by Dr. Donk's discussion of Corticium (4, p. 164-7) as well as other generic names. Persoon (9), who first used the 267

(2778) Zamites Brongn., Prodr. Hist. Vég. Foss.: 91, 94. Dec 1828, nom. cons. prop. Typus: Z. gigas (Lindl. & Hutton) Morris in Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 7: 116. Apr 1841 (Zamia gigas Lindl. & Hutton, Foss. Fl. Gr. Brit. 3: 45. Jul 1835), typ. cons. prop. Brongniart published the genus Zamites for fossil leaves that he considered as strongly comparable to leaves of the recent genus Zamia. After listing 12 fossil species of Zamia (of which, for one species only, he mentioned a species basionym: in Polypodiolites), he presented four species of Zamites: Z. bechii, Z. bucklandii, Z. lagotis, and Z. hastatus (‘hastata’), all of them with an older basionym in Filicites. The main difference between Zamia and Zamites was the unforked venation in Zamia and the bifurcated venation in Zamites. Originally, species were published in Filicites for fossil leaves that had a fern affinity. Afterwards, it was deduced that several of those species belonged to various other main groups of fossil plants, including, among others, several orders of Gymnosperms. This was, for example, the case with Z. bucklandii, already mentioned by Brongniart (in Orbigny, Dict. Univ. Hist. Nat. 13: 110. 1849) as the type of Otozamites, see below. The generic name Zamites is nowadays regularly used for a considerable number of species. In the past, the first author made searches for typifications of fossil generic names in various important sources such as Miller (N. Amer. Geol. Palaeontol. 1889), Lamotte (in Bull. U.S. Geol. Surv. 924. 1944) and in several books by A.C. Seward. A type designation for Zamites was never met in those searches. Previously, only one source was found for a Zamites type designation, but this typification was not effective. Andrews, in both editions of his Index of generic names of fossil plants (in Bull. U.S. Geol. Surv. 1013: 261. 1955; l.c. 1300: 229. 1970), had a special comment on Zamites: “Owing to innumerable name changes in the cycadophyte leaf genera, it is extremely difficult to cite type species, especially for Zamites. The following is rather arbitrarily suggested: Zamites gigas (Lindley and Hutton) Morris, 1843, p. 24.” Even though Andrews in this record used, very exceptionally*, the term “type”, this choice was not of one of the four species names included by Brongniart in the protologue of Zamites (Art. 10.2 of the ICN; Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). [*For almost every generic name in his Index, Andrews mentioned a species name as explained in the introduction of his work: “The primary objective has been to cite for each genus a type or representative species that will serve as a much-needed basic reference for paleobotanical taxonomy.”] Only recently, the first author found an earlier and effective type designation. This was in the context of an extended search in Pfeiffer's Nomenclator botanicus of 1871–1875 that started in the summer of 2015 with the generic name Aa Rchb. f. (Xenia Orchid. 1: 18. 1854). The large majority of generic names listed by Pfeiffer concern non-fossil plants. Occasionally a generic name of a fossil plant was encountered, usually without a species name being mentioned, or, if exceptionally so, only in cases in which there was only one original species. The first case of type selection by Pfeiffer for the name of a fossil plant genus was that of Stemmatopteris, seen in May 2019. This was the same month in which we arrived at the conclusion that the best type for Otozamites was O. bucklandii, based on Filicites bucklandii – a choice that had already been made by Brongniart (l.c. 1849), and that we maintained in our proposal to conserve Otozamites against Otopteris (Zijlstra & Van Konijnenburg-van Cittert in Taxon 68: 874–875. 2019). In February 2020, the first author had almost reached the end of searching through Pfeiffer and came to Zamites. For this name, Pfeiffer listed as type Z. bucklandii – and, on checking back, for Otozamites had “= Zamites”! It immediately became clear that Pfeiffer's type designation of Zamites presented a problem for Otozamites, making it a later synonym of Zamites (by lectotypification). It is, however, also a problem for Zamites because this name is still in regular use in a sense different from Otozamites, and not including Z. bucklandii. Very shortly after this discovery, the Utrecht University buildings were closed because of the coronavirus pandemic, and it was only possible in June 2020 to enter the building briefly and access the literature enabling this proposal to be prepared. Looking back at all four original species of Zamites, it became clear that Z. bechii and Z. lagotis also belong to Otozamites; Z. hastatus probably does not, but the position of that species is unclear as it has not been recorded since Brongniart (Prodr. Hist. Vég. Foss.: 95. 1828). Thus, it is necessary to select as type a species name not included in the protologue, and we decided to propose Z. gigas as conserved type. Andrews (l.c. 1955, 1970) had already attempted to designate this name as type, reflecting his knowledge of the way in which Zamites has long been used. In his Zamites entry, Andrews (l.c. 1955, 1970) also noted: “See discussion in Seward, 1917, p. 529–532.” Seward (Fossil Pl. 3: 529–532. 1917) presented a thorough overview on how the species of Zamites had been treated in the past by many important palaeobotanists, and ended with a detailed generic description. In the paragraph dealing with the genus Williamsonia (l.c. 1917: 423), he mentioned his own 1900 description and discussion of Zamia gigas (Cat. Mesoz. Pl., Jurass. Fl. 1: 177–189. 1900), in which, following Carruthers (in Trans. Linn. Soc. London 26: 693. 1870), he included this species in Williamsonia Carruth. (l.c.: 691), based on leaves of Zamia gigas and flowers, now known to be female, associated with them in fossil collections in Yorkshire (England) by Williamson (in Trans. Linn. Soc. London 26: 663–674. 1870). In 1917, Seward, although typifying Williamsonia by W. gigas (≡ Zamia gigas) (l.c. 1917: 421), took the view (l.c. 1917: 423) that Zamites should only be used when solely the leaves are known. The fact that W. gigas is homotypic with Zamites gigas requires a solution through another proposal. Some important species of Zamites are: Z. bohemicus Velen. (in Abh. Königl. Böhm. Ges. Wiss., ser. 7, 3: 6. 1889), Z. brevipennis (Oishi) H. Takim. & al. (in Paleontol. Res. 12: 135. 2008), Z. buchianus (Ettingsh.) Seward (Cat. Mesoz. Pl., Weald. Fl. 2: 79. 1895), Z. choshiensis T. Kimura & Ohana (in Proc. Japan Acad., B 61: 352. 1985), Z. decurrens C.A. Menéndez (in Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Geol. 12: 18. 1966), Z. feneonis (Miq.) Ettingsh. (in Abh. K. K. Geol. Reichsanst. Wien 1(3.3): 9. 1852), Z. occidentalis Newb. (in Macomb, Rep. Explor. Exped. Santa Fé, New Mexico 1859: 142. 1876), Z. persica Boureau (in Mém. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat., ser. 2, 30: 226. 1950), Z. quiniae T.M. Harris (Yorkshire Jurassic Fl. 3: 3. 1969), Z. vachrameevii Doludenko (in Trudy Geol. Inst. Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R., ser. 2, 178: 67. 1969), and Z. weberi Seward (in Trudy Geol. Komiteta, ser. 2, 38: 11. 1907). Many dozens of species of Zamites are recognized, all of them from Mesozoic layers, commonly Jurassic, from many parts of the world: Europe, Asia, North and South America. If Z. bucklandii should remain the type of Zamites, all those leaf species (including the above-mentioned) that are now in Zamites would have to be placed under a new generic name, since we do not know an existing name that is available and suitable for these species. Therefore, we propose to retain the genus Zamites in its currently accepted sense with Z. gigas as the conserved type. GZ, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9894-9967 JHAvKvC, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5833-3439 We thank John McNeill (Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, Scotland & Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada) for his valuable comments to improve this proposal.

SummaryRatification of appointment of repositories by the International Mycological Congress is reported. The following two family names are recommended for conservation: Chrysotrichaceae against Pulverariaceae; and the teleomorph‐typified Erysiphaceae against the anamorph‐typified Oidiaceae. The following family name is not recommended for conservation: Dothioraceae against Saccotheciaceae. The following 10 generic names are recommended for conservation: the teleomorph‐typified name Blumeria against the conserved anamorph‐typified name Oidium; Catenaria Sorokïn (Fungi) against Catenaria Roussel (Algae); Chrysothrix, nom. cons., against an additional name, Alysphaeria; Flammula (Fr. : Fr.) P. Kumm. (Fungi) against Flammula (Webb ex Spach) Fourr. (Spermatophyta) with a conserved type; Fuscopannaria against Moelleropsis; Geastrum with a conserved type; Hebeloma with a conserved type; Polycaryum with that spelling; Pseudocyphellaria with a conserved type; and Talaromyces against Lasioderma. Conservation of Detonia Freng. (Algae) against Detonia Sacc. (Fungi) is not opposed. The following generic name is not recommended for conservation: Catillaria with a conserved type. The proposal to conserve the generic name Wickerhamomyces against Hansenula was withdrawn. The following 17 species names are recommended for conservation: Agaricus laterinus (Hebeloma laterinum) against the sanctioned A. fastibilis (H. fasti‐bile); Agaricus tabescens against A. socialis; Alectoria fuscescens (Bryoria fuscescens) against Lichen chalybeiformis and A. subcana; Armillariella ostoyae (Armillaria ostoyae) against Agaricus obscurus, A. occultans, and Armillaria solidipes; Ganoderma camphoratum with a conserved type; Hebeloma fragilipes against Hebelomina domardiana (Hebeloma domardianum); Helminthosporium maydis Y. Nisik. & C. Miyake (Bipolaris maydis) againstH. maydis Brond. and Ophiobolus heterostrophus; Lecidea oederi (Rhizocarpon oederi) against L. koenigii; Lichen fuscatus Schrad. (Acarospora fuscata) against L. fuscatus Lam. with a conserved type; Lichen leucomelos (Heterodermia leucomelos) with that spelling; Lichen muralis (Lecanora muralis, Protoparmeliopsis muralis) with a conserved type; Lichen vulgatus (Opegrapha vulgata) with a conserved type; Morchella semilibera against Phallus crassipes, P. gigas and P. undosus; Peziza ammophila Durieu & Lev. against P. ammophila Saut.; Polycaryum branchipodianum with that spelling; Stereocaulon pileatum with a conserved type; and Torula stilbospora with a conserved type. The following 22 species names (teleomorph‐typified) are recommended for conservation against anamorph‐typified names: Erysiphe arcuata against Oidium carpini; Erisyphe biocellata against Oidium erysiphoides; Erysiphe buhrii against Oidium dianthi; Erysiphe catalpae against Oidium bignoniae; Erysiphe celosiae against Oidium amaranthi; Erisyphe magnicellulata against O. drummondii; Erysiphe quercicola against Oidium anacardii; Erisyphe verbasci against Oidium balsamii; Golovinomyces sonchicola against Oidium sonchi‐arvensis; Leveillula rutae against Oidium haplophylli; Microsphaera azaleae against O. ericinum; Microsphaera oehrensii against Oidium robustum; Phyllactinia alni against Ovulariopsis alni‐formosanae; Phyllactinia ampelopsidis against Ovulariopsis ampelopsidis‐heterophyllae; Phyllactinia chubutiana against Oidium insolitum; Phyllactinia dalbergiae against P. subspiralis; Phyllactiniagmelinae against Ovulariopsisgmelinae‐arboreae; Phyllactiniapopuli against Ovulariopsis salicis‐warburgii; Podosphaera solanacearum against Oidium saeforthiani; Sphaerotheca euphorbiae‐hirtae against Oidium pedilanthi; Sphaerotheca filipendulae against Torula botryoides; and Sphaerotheca leucotricha against Oidium farinosum. The following two species names are not recommended for conservation: Cylindrocladium buxicola against C. pseudonaviculatum; and Verrucaria subcerasi (Arthopyrenia subcerasi) against A. subalbicans. It is recommended that the generic name Aspidelia and the species name Lichen quis‐quiliaris not be rejected under Art. 56. The following two species names are recommended for rejection under Art. 56: Botrytis farinosa (Peronospora farinosa) and Saccharomyces sphaericus. As a result of reference under Art. 53.5, it is recommended that the following two pairs of names are not to be treated as homonyms: Bertia De Not. and Bertya Planch.; and Otidea (Pers.) Bonord. and Otidia Sweet.

Ratification of appointmentof repositories by the International Mycological Congress is reported. The following two family names are recommended for conservation: Chrysotrichaceae against Pulverariaceae; and the teleomorph-typified Erysiphaceae against the anamorph-typified Oidiaceae. The following family name is not recommended for conservation: Dothioraceae against Saccotheciaceae. The following 10 generic names are recommended for conservation: the teleomorph-typified name Blumeria against the conserved anamorph-typified name Oidium; Catenaria SorokTn (Fungi) against Catenaria Roussel (Algae); Chrysothrix, nom. cons., against an additional name, Alysphaeria; Flammula (Fr.: Fr.) P. Kumm. (Fungi) against Flammula (Webb ex Spach) Fourr. (Spermatophyta) with a conserved type; Fuscopannaria against Moelleropsis; Geastrum with a conserved type; Hebeloma with a conserved type; Polycaryum with that spelling; Pseudocyphellaria with a conserved type; and Talaromyces against Lasioderma. Conservation of Detonia Freng. (Algae) against Detonia Sacc. (Fungi) is not opposed. The following generic name is not recommended for conservation: Catillaria with a conserved type. The proposal to conserve the generic name Wickerhamomyces against Hansenula was withdrawn. The following 17 species names are recommended for conservation: Agaricus laterinus (Hebeloma laterinum) against the sanctioned A. fastibilis (H. fastibile); Agaricus tabescens against A. socialis; Alectoria fuscescens (Bryoria fuscescens) against Lichen chalybeiformis and A. subcana; Armillariella ostoyae (Armillaria ostoyae) against Agaricus obscurus, A. occultans, and Armillaria solidipes; Ganoderma camphoratum with a conserved type; Hebeloma fragilipes against Hebelomina domardiana (Hebeloma domardianum); Helminthosporium maydis Y Nisik. & C. Miyake (Bipolaris maydis) against H. maydis Brond. and Ophiobolus heterostrophus; Lecidea oederi (Rhizocarpon oederi) against L. koenigii; Lichen fuscatus Schrad. (Acarospora fuscata) against L. fuscatus Lam. with a conserved type; Lichen leucomelos (Heterodermia leucomelos) with that spelling; Lichen muralis (Lecanora muralis, Protoparmeliopsis muralis) with a conserved type; Lichen vulgatus (Opegrapha vulgata) with a conserved type; Morchella semilibera against Phallus crassipes, P. gigas and P. undosus; Peziza ammophila Durieu & Lév. against P. ammophila Saut.; Polycaryum branchipodianum with that spelling; Stereocaulon pileatum with a conserved type; and Torula stilbospora with a conserved type. The following 22 species names (teleomorph-typified) are recommended for conservation against anamorph-typified names: Erysiphe arcuata against Oidium carpini; Erisyphe biocellata against Oidium erysiphoides; Erysiphe buhrii against Oidium dianthi; Erysiphe catalpae against Oidium bignoniae; Erysiphe celosiae against Oidium amaranthi; Erisyphe magnicellulata against O. drummondii; Erysiphe quercicola against Oidium anacardii; Erisyphe verbasci against Oidium balsamii; Golovinomyces sonchicola against Oidium sonchi-arvensis; Leveillula rutae against Oidium haplophylli; Microsphaera azaleae against O. ericinum; Microsphaera oehrensii against Oidium robustum; Phyllactinia alni against Ovulariopsis alni-formosanae; Phyllactinia ampelopsidis against Ovulariopsis ampelopsidis-heterophyllae; Phyllactinia chubutiana against Oidium insolitum; Phyllactinia dalbergiae against P. subspiralis; Phyllactinia gmelinae against Ovulariopsis gmelinae-arboreae; Phyllactinia populi against Ovulariopsis salicis-warburgii; Podosphaera solanacearum against Oidium saeforthiani; Sphaerotheca euphorbiae-hirtae against Oidium pedilanthi; Sphaerotheca filipendulae against Torula botryoides; and Sphaerotheca leucotricha against Oidium farinosum. The following two species names are not recommended for conservation: Cylindrocladium buxicola against C. pseudonaviculatum; and Verrucaria subcerasi (Arthopyrenia subcerasi) against A. subalbicans. It is recommended that the generic name Aspidelia and the species name Lichen quisquiliaris not be rejected under Art. 56. The following two species names are recommended for rejection under Art. 56: Botrytis farinosa (Peronospora farinosa) and Saccharomyces sphaericus. As a result of reference under Art. 53.5, it is recommended that the following two pairs of names are not to be treated as homonyms: Bertia De Not. and Bertya Planch.; and Otidea (Pers.) Bonord. and Otidia Sweet.

The family name Viburnaceae is recommended for conservation. The following two generic names are recommended for conservation: Dunbaria with conserved type and Meconopsis with conserved type. Cacalia sect. Cissampelopsis, the basionym of Cissampelopsis, is recommended for conservation with conserved type. The following three generic names are not recommended for conservation: Brachypterum against Solori, Inula with conserved type, and Pabstiella against Phloeophila. Conservation of the generic name Mezoneuron with that spelling is considered to be unnecessary. The generic name Hexasepalum is not recommended for rejection. The following 18 species names are recommended for conservation: Ageratum conyzoides with conserved type, Bambusa baccifera with conserved type, Calamus latifolius with conserved type, Carex norvegica against C. halleri and with conserved type, Eucalyptus populnea with conserved type, Ficus insipida with conserved type, Geranium pyrenaicum with conserved type, Glycine floribunda with conserved type, Glycyrrhiza inflata against G. paucifoliolata, Hedysarum incanum Sw. against H. incanum Thunb., Hoya mitrata against H. wallichiana, Ipomoea semisagitta with conserved type, Macrolobium grandiflorum against M. straussianum, Maytenus ilicifolia Mart. ex Reissek against M. ilicifolia (Schrad.) Planch., Myosotis sicula against M. gussonei, Ornithogalum narbonense with conserved type, Polygala longicaulis against P. brachistachyos, and Spermacoce hyssopifolia Willd. ex Roem. & Schult. The following four species names are not recommended for conservation: Carex foliosa D. Don against C. foliosa All., Cytisus podolicus against C. bucovinensis, Cytisus blockianus against C. kerneri and C. marilauni, and Xiphion vulgare against Iris xiphium. In lieu of conservation of Curcuma euchroma against Erndlia subpersonata and Odontarrhena obovata against Alyssum fischerianum, rejection of Erndlia subpersonata and Alyssum fischerianum is recommended. Conservation of two species names, Prunus virginiana with conserved type and Solanum torvum with conserved type, is considered to be unnecessary. The following 12 species names are recommended for rejection: Cactus coquimbanus, Eriogonum cordatum, Gomphrena polygonoides, Laurus nitida, Oisodix fulva, Pinus adunca, Pinus californiana, Potamogeton dimorphus, Potamogeton petiolaris, Sisymbrium lineare, Spermacoce hyssopifolia Sm., and Spermacoce strigosa. The following three species names are not recommended for rejection: Blainvillea rhomboidea, Hexasepalum angustifolium, and Verbesina dichotoma. It is recommended that Ferdinanda Lag. and Ferdinandea Pohl, and Lerouxia Mérat and Lerrouxia Caball., be treated as homonyms. It is recommended that Laurus porrecta Roxb. be treated as not validly published. After two ballots, no vote of at least 11 either for or against a proposal to superconserve Adoxaceae against Viburnaceae has been obtained.

The Judicial Commission affirms that the genus name Sinorhizobium Chen et al. 1988 is a later synonym of Ensifer Casida 1982, and that the former genus name is not conserved over the latter genus name. The species name 'Sinorhizobium adhaerens' is not validly published.

(2952) Coccidioides posadasii M.C. Fisher & al. in Mycologia 94: 78. 2002, nom. cons. prop. Lectotypus (hic designatus): [cryopreserved culture] “Pappagianis isolate ‘Silveira’” from “severe primary coccidioidal infection [human] with erythema nodosum”, U.S.A., California, San Joaquin Valley, 1951 (ATCC No. 28868). MBT 10011881 (=) Posadasia esferiformis Cantón ex Posadas, Ensayo Nueva Neoplasia Hombre: Psorospermiosis Infect. Generaliz. 2: [3, footnote]–94. 1898 (‘esferiforme’), nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus (hic designatus): preserved infected human male, left foot, Pieza No. 779 (Mus. Patol., Dept. Patol., Fac. Med. Univ. Buenos Aires). MBT 10011896 (=) Coccidium posadasi Cantón, Tratado Zooparásitos Cuerpo Humano: 108. 1898 (‘posadas’), nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus (hic designatus): [icon in] Cantón, Tratado Zooparásitos Cuerpo Humano: 119, fig. 6. 1898. MBT 10011898 (=) Pseudococcidioides mazzae Fonseca in Bol. Inst. Clín. Quir. Fac. Ci. Méd. Univ. Nac. 4: 495. Apr–Mai 1928, nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus (hic designatus): [icon in] Bol. Inst. Clín. Quir. Fac. Ci. Méd. Univ. Nac. 4: 499, fig. 19. Apr–Mai 1928. MBT 10011882 (=) Geotrichum louisianoideum Castell. in Med. Press Circ. 136: 439. 31 Mai 1933, nom. rej. prop. Neotypus (hic designatus): [cryopreserved culture] Castellani, No. C. 8 (CBS No. 145.34). MBT 10011899 (=) Glenospora meteuropea Castell. in Med. Press Circ. 136: 440. 31 Mai 1933, nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus (hic designatus): [icon in] Med. Press Circ. 136: 440, fig. 4. 31 Mai 1933. MBT 10011900. Epitypus (hic designatus): [cryopreserved culture] isolated by A. Castellani, deposited by R. Ciferri (CBS No. 146.34). MBT 10011885 (=) Glenospora metamericana Castell. in Med. Press Circ. 136: 440. 31 Mai 1933, nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus (hic designatus): [icon in] Med. Press Circ. 136: 440, fig. 5. 31 Mai 1933. MBT 10011901. Epitypus (hic designatus): [cryopreserved culture] isolated by A. Castellani, deposited by R. Ciferri (CBS No. 196.34). MBT 10011886 (=) Trichosporon proteolyticum Negroni & Villafañe in Mycopathologia 2: 57. 1939, nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus (hic designatus): [icon in] Mycopathologia 2(1): t. VIII, fig. 2. 1939. MBT 10011902 Coccidioides immitis Rixford & Gilchrist (in Johns Hopkins Hosp. Rep. 1: 243. 1896) was designated by Clements & Shear (Gen. Fung., ed. 2: 410. 1931) as type of the fungal generic name Coccidioides Stiles in Rixford & Gilchrist (l.c.) (Ascomycota, Onygenales). This species name is occasionally incorrectly cited as “C. immitis C.W. Stiles in Rixford & Gilchrist”, due to a misreading of a statement by Rixford & Gilchrist in the original description “[…] we propose for it, in accordance with the suggestion of Dr. Stiles, the generic name Coccidioides, and we designate the species as Coccidioides immitis”. A quoted letter from Stiles republished by Rixford & Gilchrist (l.c.: 244) supplies the generic diagnosis differentiating Coccidioides from other protozoan genera, Eimeria Schneider and Klossia Schneider, so that the generic name should be attributed to Stiles (Art. 46.2 of the ICN; Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). Stiles agreed with the suggested specific epithet “immitis” that was made by Rixford & Gilchrist during a face-to-face meeting (see quoted letter) for the one species but disagreed with a second species epithet, “superficialis” for a second species that Rixford & Gilchrist subsequently formally named C. pyogenes Rixford & Gilchrist (l.c.: 261). A sister species was molecularly recognized by M.C. Fisher, G.I. Koenig, T.J. White & J.W. Taylor (in Mycologia 94: 73–84. 2002), who described, identified, and separated it using an operational species concept, Genealogical Concordance Phylogenetic Species Recognition (GCPSR; Avise & Ball in Oxford Surv. Evol. Biol. 7: 45–67. 1990; Taylor & al. in Fungal Genet. Biol. 31: 21–32. 2000). The species was named Coccidioides posadasii M.C. Fisher & al. (l.c. 2002: 78). Sequences of the rDNA internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region provide diagnostic polymorphisms for the identification and differentiation of this species from C. immitis (Tintelnot & al. in Med. Mycol. 45: 385–393. 2007). Both species are etiologic agents of one of the classical systemic diseases, coccidioidomycosis, an infection known since the late 19th century (Posadas [as Posada] in Anales Circulo Méd. Argent. 15: 585–597, t. I–III. 1892; Wernicke in Centralbl. Bakteriol. Parasitenk. 12: 859–861. 1892). While both species exhibit a preference for arid desert regions of North, Central and South America, C. posadasii is found throughout these climatic zones, whereas C. immitis is primarily restricted in its distribution to the San Joaquin Valley area in California (Fisher & al., l.c. 2002: 73–98; Hamm & al. in J. Fungi 5(74): 1–11. 2019; Kollath & al. in Virulence 10: 222–233. 2019; Crum in Infect. Dis. Therapy 11: 713–742. 2022; Kirkland & al. in J. Fungi 8(859): 1–36. 2022). The purported “holotype” of Coccidioides posadasii is the frozen Californian strain RMSCC “Pappagianis isolate ‘Silveira’” (Fisher & al., l.c. 2002: 79), which, in the appendix to the publication (p. 82), is also listed as “Silveira4” from “D. Pappagianis”. Demosthenes Pappagianis is a well-known Coccidioides researcher who among other things was an author of a publication (Zimmermann & al. in J. Clin. Microbiol. 32: 3040–3042. 1994) that indicated that “Silveira” was isolated in 1951 from a human with severe primary coccidioidal infection with erythema nodosum and from the San Joaquin Valley, California. There were three other Silveira clones of the same isolate routed via the laboratory of Rebecca Cox, referred to as Silveira1, 2 and 3 by R. Cox used as controls (Fisher & al., l.c. 2002: 73–98). The history of these clonal isolates is further elucidated in a genome study of C. posadasii using the “Silveira” isolate in yet another lab (Teixeira & al. in G3 12(4): jkac031. 2022). RMSCC is an acronym for Roche Molecular Systems Culture Collection in Alameda, California. Article 40.7 of the ICN stipulates that beginning in 1990, “the single herbarium, collection, or institution in which the type is conserved must be specified” otherwise the name is not validly published. The type of C. posadasii is consequently interpreted as the RMSCC isolate stored in RMSCC because this was the only location and designation specified in the first sentence following “HOLOTYPE:”. The authors went on to say that it was a widely used isolate maintained in the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) # 28868. Additionally, they indicated that a “killed sample of RMSCC Silveira has been lodged in the Jepson Herbarium, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720, USA” and that frozen samples were also in the “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia”, thus listing three other locations ATCC (Manassas), JEPS (Berkeley) and CDC (Atlanta) later in the paragraph. Consequently, we interpret the holotype designation to be complete at the end of the first sentence, and the next three mentioned institutes to be indications of isotypes. Given the great importance of the organism involved, it is convenient to make this reasonable assumption of a single holotype with three isotypes. If it were not so interpreted, the name would not be validly published. Notably, the name Coccidioides posadasii was published in the first issue of Mycologia for 2002 and the paper had been in press when the 9/11 attacks occurred on September 11, 2001 in New York City, NY and the Pentagon, Arlington, VA. The species in the genus Coccidioides had become select agents in the U.S.A. (Dixon in J. Appl. Microbiol. 91: 602–605. 2001) and tightened rules followed (Federal Register 70: 13294–13325. 2005) for security reasons. Consequently the isolates, including the holotype, at Roche were destroyed (Matthew Fisher, pers. comm., 2 May 2012). The “killed” specimen was probably intended for UC (J. Taylor, pers. comm., 1 May 2012) rather than JEPS (both herbaria are in Berkeley but only UC held fungi), but the specimen never made it to either and was destroyed before deposit (J. Taylor, pers. comm., 1 May 2012). The number “94720” published by Fisher & al. (l.c. 2002: 79), is a U.S.A. postal code number for the herbaria rather than a specimen number. Given that the holotype was destroyed at RMSCC, and there are no illustrations, we hereby designated the frozen isotype at ATCC as lectotype in accordance with Art. 9.11–9.12; specifically ATCC No. 28868 (ex-RMSCC Silveira from San Joaquin, California, U.S.A.). We note that this isolate is also deposited elsewhere as CBS No. 113859. Ironically and confusingly, the name Coccidioides posadasii was proposed (Fisher & al., l.c. 2002) for the predominantly so called “non-California population” (Zimmermann & al., l.c.; Koufopanou & al. in Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 94: 5478–5482. 1997) but typified by an aberrant outlier, a Californian isolate. Should the Committee for Fungi and/or the General Committee decide that the name Coccidioides posadasii was not validly published in 2002 with regard to Art. 40.7 by not following our interpretation as explained above, then we request that the registered, validly published homonym (or isonym) Coccidioides posadasii M.C. Fisher & al. in de Hoog & al. (Index Fungorum No. 532. 2023) holotypified by the same lectotype (ATCC No. 28868) chosen here for the 2002 name, be substituted for conservation. Several older names long forgotten as supposed synonyms of Coccidioides immitis (see, e.g., Dodge, Med. Mycol.: 149. 1935) were not considered by Fisher & al. (l.c. 2002) and some of those names threaten the name C. posadasii: C. pyogenes Rixford & Gilchrist (l.c.: 261) was described simultaneously with C. immitis but, because we conclude that it is referable to that species, not C. posadasii, it is discussed in the Appendix to this proposal (below). Other names older than C. posadasii that threaten or potentially threaten the name include Posadasia esferiformis (‘esferiforme’) Cantón ex Posadas (Ensayo Nueva Neoplasia Hombre: Psorospermiosis Infect. Generaliz. 2: [3]. 1898), type of the generic name Posadasia Cantón ex Posadas, which was named after the same person, Dr. Alejandro Posadas. Posadas's famous patient was 33-year-old Mr. Domingo Escurra from Argentina. Posadas studied Mr. Escurra's disease for 7 years, publishing photographs of him depicting his face, full head, torso, all limbs, front and back throughout the years and conducted an autopsy on him following his death. Posadas believed the causal agent was a protozoan and published numerous illustrations and photographs. Although the organism was unnamed in his thesis and some of his publications, Dr. Elios Cantón, a famous Argentinian medical doctor, proposed a generico-specifica name to honour Posadas, “Posadasia esferiforme”, in a footnote in volume 2 of Posadas's Ensayo … for the organism infecting Mr. Escurra. In 1948 the infected head of Mr. Escurra was discovered preserved in a jar in formalin by Dr. Flavio Niño (in Bol. Inst. Clin. Quir. 26: 3–14. 1950), recognizable because the patient had been photographed while living. This was preceded by the discovery of other autopsy specimens (feet, hand) by Dr. R. Sammartino, as documented by Deresinski & Mirels (in Med. Mycol. 57: S3–S15. 2019). Escurra's infected left foot (specimen No. 779) was re-examined by Canteros & al. (in Medicina (Buenos Aires) 69: 215–220. 2009) using microscopy and molecular techniques to identify the fungus specifically as Coccidioides posadasii. Given a choice of original materials including numerous illustrations or Mr. Escurra's head (Exhibit No. 1, Museo del Instituto de Parasitología de la Facultad de Ciencias Médicas de Buenos Aires), versus the molecularly analysed left foot fungus (No. 779, Museo de Patología, Departamento de Patología, Facultad de Medicina de la Universidad de Buenos Aires., Pieza) we opt to select No. 779 as lectotype specimen of Posadasia esferiformis. Photographs of the lectotype were published by Niño (l.c.), Canteros & al. (l.c.) and Deresinski & Mirels (l.c.). This confirms that this earlier species name applies to C. posadasii. Authentic materials of some species names introduced by Aldo Castellani and co-workers (in Med. Press Circ. 136: 439–440. 31 Mai 1933; all often incorrectly attributed to Castellani & Jacono in J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 36: 297–321. 16 Oct 1933) are still available as living isolates in the CBS culture collection. Geotrichum louisianoideum Castell. (CBS No. 145.34, from a well-travelled patient living in Louisiana, U.S.A.), Glenospora meteuropea Castell. (CBS No. 146.34, from an English patient reported to be infected in the Balkans) and Glenospora metamericana Castell. (CBS No. 196.34, origin unknown) all proved to be identical to Coccidioides posadasii on the basis of morphological characteristics and sequences of the rDNA ITS region (Tintelnot & al., l.c.). As these names fulfil the requirements for novel species descriptions under the Code, they are older synonyms of C. posadasii, having priority by more than 60 years (Tintelnot & al., l.c.). In his May 1933 publication, Castellani (l.c.) published two hanging drop illustrations of mostly nondistinctive mycelium, one each of Glenospora metamericana and G. meteuropea that are here selected as their respective lectotypes. No illustration was supplied for Geotrichum louisianoideum in May 1933 (Med. Press Circ. 136), but a nondescript illustration was published in October 1933 (Castellani & Jacono, l.c.) where the earlier publication in May is attributed to G. louisianoideum. The cryopreserved epitypes selected here for the Glenospora names are based upon authentic identified isolates deposited by R. Ciferri many years ago in CBS and their metadata has been lost. It is logical and reasonable to assume that Ciferri, a contemporary of the older Castellani who was a fellow Italian medical mycology investigator researching the same diseases (see obituary by Baldacci in Mycologia 57: 198–201. 1965), would have acquired Castellani's isolates directly. Castellani & Jacono (l.c.: 320) stated: “Cultures of the fungi described in this paper will be gladly supplied to workers interested in the subject.” Additional names for which there are neither types nor authentic cultures have been listed (Baker & al. in Farlowia 1: 220. 1943; Dodge, l.c.) as synonyms of Coccidioides immitis but because they are from outside of California they were probably the more widespread C. posadasii. These are: “Coccidium neoplasicum” Cantón (Tratado Zooparasítica Cuerpo Humano: 123. 1898) that Cantón replaced by Coccidium posadas before publication (see below); Pseudococcidioides mazzae Fonseca (in Bol. Inst. Clín. Quir. Fac. Ci. Méd. Univ. Nac. 4: 495. Apr/Mai 1928; in Prensa Méd. Argent. 12: 532. post Aug 1928) from laryngeal abscess of male patient, Chaco, Argentina, 1927; Oidium protozoides Ophüls (in J. Exp. Med. 6: 459. 1905) isolated from disseminated infection of 19-year-old male cattle farmer, originating from the Azores, presenting in San Francisco, 1900 but now considered to be synonymous with C. immitis (see Appendix); and Trichosporon proteolyticum Negroni & Villafañe (l.c.) isolated from a pulmonary and disseminated fatal infection of 41-year-old male originating from Córdoba, Argentina, 1938. This last species name was based upon a culture forming arthrospores rather than on the characteristic spherules in tissues normally linked to Coccidioides. Negroni later synonymized Trichosporon proteolyticum with Pseudococcidioides mazzae following experiments with cultures of T. proteolyticum injected into guinea pigs that induced production of endospores characteristic of Pseudococcidioides (Negroni & Radice in Rev. Arg. Dermatosifilografia 30(3/4): 219–223. 1946), but this was followed by Artagaveytia-Allende, who studied the isolate and concluded P. mazzae was conspecific with Coccidioides immitis (in Mycopathologia 4: 375–378. 1949). As these originated in South America, they are here considered to be C. posadasii. The name Pseudococcidioides mazzae was published at least twice in 1928, with internal evidence suggesting that the article in Bol. Inst. Clín. Quir. Fac. Ci. Méd. Univ. Nac. volume 4 was published in the spring (April or May) because of articles dated April 1928 bracketing Fonseca's publication on pages 265 and 522. Whereas the publication in Prensa Méd. Argent. volume 12 begins on page 513 with a footnote saying the article was presented at a meeting in May, 1928 and it ends on page 536 where reference is made to a meeting on August 8, 1928. In both 1928 articles there is the same figure 19, here selected as lectotype. The introduction of Coccidioides posadasii as a species distinct from C. immitis has stimulated much debate (Millar & al. in J. Clin. Microbiol. 41: 5778–5780. 2003), as this was the first time that a novel species had been described through the use of purely molecular methods. The name is now widely accepted by mycologists and physicians (Umeyama & al. in J. Clin. Microbiol. 44: 1859–1862. 2006; Ramani & al. in Mycopathologia 163: 315–319. 2007; Maxwell & al. in Evolution 73: 42–58. 2018; Crum, l.c.; Teixeira & al., l.c.). Furthermore, the species is the etiologic agent of one of the major fungal diseases in endemic areas in the Americas, with thousands of infections each year (Laniado-Laborin in Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 1111: 19–34. 2007). Under the names Coccidioides immitis and C. posadasii, the two species have been the focus of genome studies (Sharpton & al. in Genome Res. 19: 1722–1731. 2009; Neafsey & al. in Genome Res. 20: 938–946. 2010; Maxwell & al., l.c; Teixeira & al., l.c.) and many medical studies (>215 listed in PubMed as of Jan 2022; e.g., Tortorano & al. in Mycopathologia 180: 229–235. 2015; Loudin & al. in Case Rep. Infect. Dis. 2016: No. 8715405. 2016) including whole-genome studies (Maxwell & al., l.c.; Teixeira & al., l.c.). Therefore, to resurrect an earlier name would be counterproductive as it would contribute to nomenclatural instability and confusion. In contrast, the names Coccidium posadasi, Geotrichum louisianoideum, Glenospora meteuropea, G. metamericana, Posadasia esferiformis, Pseudococcidioides and Trichosporon proteolyticum have been and forgotten in of synonyms as has Coccidioides and Oidium recognized as to Coccidioides Given the of the name C. posadasii and the of this species as the agent of a major it is to the name for the We propose to the name Coccidioides posadasii its earlier we note that many of the on fungi of in medical a century ago often fungi for and were often reported by in which of C.W. (l.c.) Wernicke as a of Coccidioides which would make it an earlier generic name, with earlier specific the one by and often subsequently by the publication by Wernicke (l.c.), not We that Posadas (Ensayo Nueva Neoplasia Hombre: Psorospermiosis Infect. Generaliz. 1: that Dr. Wernicke that Posadas's was not and that the be used for the morphological was many in the of the Fungi to & al., Fung., ed. 10: and in other & al., & synonymous “Coccidium neoplasicum” attributed to Cantón was to his now l.c. 1898), where on page that following Posadas's thesis they were to name Posadas's protozoan “Coccidium neoplasicum” validly but on the name “Coccidium Coccidium posadasi Cantón was based upon descriptions supplied by Posadas and quoted and illustrations by Posadas. Cantón (l.c. 1898) Posadas's illustrations, as is from fig. (p. which is identical to Posadas's second on page of his published thesis de la de fig. (p. is here selected as lectotype. Therefore, Coccidium posadasi is synonymous with Coccidioides posadasii. Coccidium typified by C. ed. 1: a protozoan We not the epithet further than The generic name Coccidium should not be with earlier use of or with or a first for a among to the Coccidioides posadasii, would publication of a medical mycology and to the of among and of the names of the species, Coccidioides immitis and C. of Coccidioides posadasii from C. immitis not only differentiating two using molecular of but is also upon the and of the name, C. via its type C. posadasii was described in 2002 the authors the name C. immitis was to a recognized A second species, C. was simultaneously described with C. immitis in and have been either C. immitis or C. posadasii. the name C. immitis nor C. pyogenes have types and both and to their and to decide C. pyogenes should be C. posadasii or listed as a of C. immitis or C. posadasii should be named C. are (Art. as explained Rixford & Gilchrist (l.c.: introduced the name Coccidioides the type of Coccidioides, based upon of a specimen from a fatal of disseminated in a who had been to the of San in Authentic of C. immitis is not known to be preserved at the Johns Hopkins and pers. comm., and the type deposited by Rixford & Gilchrist (l.c.: at the of via and of and from of U.S.A., has been pers. Additional specimens held by Stiles, and have been & al. (l.c.) designated a culture of strain RMSCC No. preserved in the (CBS No. the original as the of C. CBS is now the Fungal The culture is preserved as CBS No. of the was not in accordance with Art. because other original as were published in the Therefore, we hereby designate a fig. 1 & l.c.) as lectotype of Coccidioides immitis Additionally, we hereby designate CBS No. as to the lectotype thus & (l.c.) of the name, C. as a species distinct from C. posadasii. We further note that the lectotype was from as reported by Rixford & Gilchrist (l.c.), a in California who had in the but which they or not have been infected to from the Coccidioides pyogenes Rixford & Gilchrist (l.c.: 261) described simultaneously with C. immitis was isolated from a infection of a 33-year-old male originating from the Azores, having in San Joaquin Valley, California, presenting in San Francisco, 1938. As with C. the authors deposited are to be in the that are as were the other materials with other both C. immitis and C. Rixford and Gilchrist (l.c.: 261) cited and following the which earlier publication of the A footnote on page that were listed following another article on No reference to Rixford and Gilchrist is but there are by Med. 1: to Gilchrist and Rixford and to in another The two to and were by the authors on the disease before in the by both study of the disease is but no generic name or are Rixford & Gilchrist (l.c.) the two species that they recognized based upon disease and morphological but not the that the same was in both We note that because the two species have a distribution and be we still the that the original of C. pyogenes have been C. immitis as both were described from California from who had been in the San Joaquin to in name in we hereby designate the illustration of Coccidioides pyogenes from 1 by Rixford & Gilchrist (l.c.) as lectotype of C. pyogenes Additionally, we hereby designate as the same specimen selected as for C. CBS No. This that C. pyogenes is a of C. immitis and not of C. posadasii. The selected for both was molecularly and from that for C. posadasii by & al. (l.c.) and There was a that C. pyogenes was C. immitis than C. posadasii because of the of C. immitis in California. other listed synonyms for Coccidioides pyogenes are and Ophüls (l.c.) considered that C. immitis Rixford & Gilchrist and C. pyogenes Rixford & Gilchrist a single species that should be in Oidium and “[…] name then would be Oidium there should be to the of Oidium published to these are validly published names (Art. both are as the immitis or pyogenes were available for use in It is also which name is C. pyogenes had been synonymized with C. immitis in Sci. 1: the Oidium names should be considered as to C. We Dr. de Universidad del San de for including the Cantón (l.c. 1898) from and also for with de de Instituto de We also that the late and were and on

The generic name Megastoma was first published on a printed exsiccata label which read 'B. BALANSA, PL. D'ALGERIE, 1853/1035. MEGASTOMA PUSILLUM, Coss. et DR! mss./Biskra, sur less collines incultes./10 Mai.' The name was without description and so not validly published. Megastoma was taken up by Bentham & Hooker f., Gen. P1. 2: 851 (1876), but clearly not as a generic name but for a section of Eritrichium Schrad. The descriptive matter was just sufficient to allow validation of the sectional name, but no species was mentioned. It was recorded from Egypt as well as Algeria. In 1894 Index Kewensis listed Megastoma Coss. & Dur. ex Benth. & Hook.f. as a generic name, but gave it as a synonym of Eritrichium, and this cannot now be regarded as validation of the name at generic rank. In 1895 Bonnet & Barratte validated both the generic and specific names by publishing an illustration with analysis (Art. 42.1), and a year later they gave generic and specific descriptions and the distribution as Algeria and Tunisia. However, in the meantime Megastoma had been quite independently published by Grassi in 1881 for a genus of algae (see Index Nominum Genericorum, 1979) and Megastoma (Benth. & Hook.f.) Bonnet & Barratte is an illegitimate later homonym. No other name is hitherto available.

BackgroundGlobal changes that affect local societies may cause the loss of ecological knowledge. The process of cultural change in Zapotec communities of the Oaxacan Isthmus intensified during the first years of the 20th century due to industrial and agro-industrial modernization projects and an increase in the level of formal schooling. Based on the case of the Oaxacan Isthmus, this study assesses the relationship between cultural change and the loss of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK).MethodsThree hundred male heads of family were interviewed from three municipalities in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Oaxaca, Mexico selected to span a wide range of cultural change. Each participant was shown herbarium specimens and photographs of a sample of 30 species drawn from a pool of 94 representing local plant diversity. Visual recognition of each species, knowledge of plant form, generic name, specific name, and local uses were scored. The sum of the five scores provided an index of global knowledge which we used as a proxy for TEK. Analysis of variance revealed differences between groups of economic activities. We collected socio-demographic data from the interviewees such as age, level of schooling, and competency in the local language. With these data we ran a principal component analysis and took the first axis as an index of cultural change, and correlated it with the scores obtained each respondent.ResultsWe found statistically significant differences between groups of people with different economic activities, as well as a highly significant negative relationship between the Index of cultural change and ecological knowledge at all levels, with regression coefficients between 81.2% and 88.3%, indicating that cultural change is affecting traditional botanical knowledge.ConclusionsOur results shown that cultural change, as indicated by occupational activity, level of formal schooling, and competence in the indigenous language, is negatively associated with the loss of Zapotec ethnobotanical knowledge. Heads of family engaged in secondary economic activities and services were less culturally competent, especially regarding the knowledge of generic and specific names as well as plant uses.

This world catalog of the superfamilies Pterophoroidea and Alucitoidea is Volume 4 of a series in progress by Apollo Books. These fascinating “micromoth” superfamilies are called “plume moths” and “many-plumed moths” because most of the species have wings that are cleft into feathery, long-fringed lobes. At rest, the elegantly slender-bodied and longlegged plume moths often fold their wings and hold them out from their body in an easily recognizable T shape. They arewidely distributed and found in all the terrestrial biomes. The often hairy larvae typically feed on leaves, sowers, and stems of a variety of forbs, including many composites and some plants in the mint, Þgwort, pea, and morning glory families. Very few species of these poorly knowngroups havewidely used common names. The last world catalog comparable to Gielis was Meyrick (1913). However, study of these moths has recently undergone a modest revival, especially in Europe. The systematics has been greatly advanced, but it is still in sux. The biology of many species is still unknown or poorly known. This most-welcome book presents a complete and current classiÞcation and nomenclature, a comprehensive bibliography as well as a useful host plant list and summary distribution for 1,300 species. Although some features of the classiÞcation may be disputed and eventually superseded, and somemostly typographical errors are evident, the book Þlls a void in the literature on Pterophoroidea andAlucitoidea. Aswould be expected for a “catalog,” this book of annotated lists is not an identiÞcation or Þeld guide, and it contains no illustrations or descriptive information. The high-quality paper, print, and binding make it attractive and durable. Theauthor,CeesGielis, is a researchassociateof the National Natural History Museum in Leiden and a leading specialist and world authority on the family Pterophoridae. He is widely published, including a 1993 generic revision of the superfamily Pterophoroidea, a 1996 monograph on the Pterophoridae of Europe, numerous new species descriptions, and taxonomicactions.Michael Shaffer collaboratedwithGielis on the small family Tineodidae. Shaffer is the highly regarded, retired curator of Pyraloidea and Pterophoroidea at what is now The Natural History Museum, London. Volume 4 is edited by Hugo van der Wolf. Gielis treats the Pterophoroidea as comprised of two families: Pterophoridae, with 1,136 described species in four subfamilies and 89 genera; and Macropiratidae,with three species, all in the genusAgdistopsis. The Alucitoidea is treated as being comprised of two families: Alucitidae, with 186 species in nine genera; and Tineodidae, with 19 species in 11 genera. Several new synonyms and one new replacement name are presented, but without discussion. The books introduction refers to previous catalogs and checklists. The sources of information are discussed, and the format of the annotated species list is outlined. A breakdown of the classiÞcation used for the two superfamilies is shown to the genus level, and the number of species in each taxon is given. The core of this book is the annotated catalog itselfNa list of animal names with associated authorship, year of publication, synonyms, and other information. At the genus group and higher levels of classiÞcation, taxa are arranged in the phylogenetic order proposed by the author.Within each genus, the species names are listed in alphabetical order. Below each species name, the following information from the original description is given: genus in which the species was originally described, species name as originally spelled, year of publication, page number, and country of the type locality. Next, synonyms are listed with the same format and information. Additional annotation includes larval host plant names when known, parasite names when known, and distribution by biogeographic region and country insofar as the author considers the data to be valid. Several additional lists complete the book. One list catalogs the single fossil pterophorid species that has been named. Another is a “Comprehensive Reference List,” which is 45 pages and will save the serious researcher countless hours tracking down original descriptions and other literature. Next are indices of the dipterous and hymenopterous parasites. An index of hostplants is orderedalphabeticallybygenusand then by species within a genus. As might be expected from the concentration of detailed andexacting information in this catalog, some errors are present. The publisher has provided an errata sheet, but at present this sheet is incomplete. The errors include misspellings of some names of taxa and people, occasional incorrect use of the conventional parentheses around author name when originally described in a genus other than the current genus, onemention of an incorrect family name, a few omissions, and a few incorrect years of publication. Unfortunately, some of these errors may not be detectedbya readerwhodoesnot checkoriginal sources and might thus be repeated in subsequent literature. I thank Alma Solis, Deborah Matthews, and Cees Gielis for comments and suggestions that helped me write this review.

SummaryInformation on appointments to the Fungal Nomenclature Bureau is provided. Appointments to two Special‐purpose Committees are reported. The following four generic names are recommended for conservation: Bilimbia with a conserved type; Coccotrema against Lepolichen; Fuscidea against Maronea; and Leptogium (lichenized Ascomycota) with a conserved type. The following two generic names are not recommended for conservation: Marcelaria against Buscalionia; and Variolaria Pers. against Lepra and Variolaria Bull. The following seven species names are recommended for conservation: Lecidea parmeliarum (Abrothallus parmeliarum) against Endocarpon parasiticum; Lichen cervinus (Acarospora cervina) with a conserved type; L. ferrugineus (Blastenia ferruginea) with a conserved type; L. flavus Bellardi (Pleopsidium flavum) against L. flavus Schreb.; Megaspora verrucosa (Ach.) Arcadia & A. Nordin against M. verrucosa Hafellner & V. Wirth.; Umbilicaria spodochroa with a conserved type and with that spelling; and Usnea fulvoreagens with a conserved type. The following three species names are not recommended for conservation: Alectoria fuscescens (Bryoria fuscescens), nom. cons., against the additional names Usnea implexa, A. capillaris, A. cana, A. rubens, A. fuscidula, A. degenii, A. forissii, A. ostrobotniae, A. kuemmerleana, A. haynaldiae, A. achariana, A. lanestris, A. prostratosteola, and A. viridescens; Lichen fuscovirens (Collema fuscovirens) against L. pulcher; and Ochrolechia szatalaensis against Pertusaria poriniza. The following two species names are recommended for rejection under Art. 56: Lecidea cornea and Lichen conspurcatus. The following generic name is recommended for rejection under Art. 56: Huea (and the original proposal to conserve Huea with a conserved type is not recommended). It is recommended that the species name Variolaria torta not be rejected under Art. 56. The proposal to conserve Pertusariaceae against Variolariaceae is considered unnecessary because the latter name is illegitimate. The Nomenclature Committee for Fungi could not arrive at a recommendation on the proposal to conserve Lagerheimia (De Toni) Chodat against Lagerheima Sacc. and nor resolve requests for binding decisions on whether the pair Geisleria Nitschke and Geissleria Lange‐Bert. & Metzeltin and the pair Lagerheima Sacc. and Lagerheimia (De Toni) Chodat are sufficiently alike to be confused – but these three items have now been resolved by the General Committee.

(261–266) Proposals to amend the <i>Code</i> to update regulations of the nomenclature of fossils