ZOOTAXA

ZOOTAXA 1944 Arnett: 5 (morphology: female genitalia) >> as syn. of N. tomentosus651970 Gersdorf: 366 (morphology: female genitalia in German) >> as valid species &senior of N. tomentosus1985 Anderson & Peck: 70 (revision: key, descriptions & catalog) >> as syn. of N.tomentosus1993 Peck & Miller: 9 (species-group catalog) >> as syn. of N. tomentosus1996 Ratcliffe: 82 (revision: key, descriptions & catalog) >> as syn. of N. tomentosusComments: See comments for N. germanicus and N. interruptus regarding the names ofGistel. We herein move N. requiescator Gistel, 1848, previously considered a synonymof N. marginatus, to synonymy under N. tomentosus. We also synonymyze the overlooked,junior homonym N. marginatus Gistel under N. tomentosus. Gistel described N.requiescator as having a pronotum with “silky hair”, black antennal clubs, and the posteriorelytral fascia narrow; all traits which unambiguously fit the description of N. tomentosus.The names N. tomentosus Weber 1801 and N. velutinus Fabricius 1801 were describedin the same year for the same species. The name N. tomentosus has been considered thevalid name for the species since Hatch (1927) stated that Sherborn (1922) indicated theWeber 1801 publication “probably antedates” Fabricius 1801. As a result the Weber namehas been considered valid since 1927 and has appeared in dozens of publications. Sherborn’s(1922) statement of “probably” is opinion and is insufficient to resolve this case.Article 24 of the ICZN 4 specifies how to determine precedence between simultaneouslypublished names. If the month (or day within the same month) of the two publicationscannot be established, ICZN 24.2 states that precedence is determined by the first reviser.The first reviser is the first author who cites and selects from both names. In this case thefirst reviser is Kirby (1837) who selected N. velutinus as the valid name. Unfortunatelythe name N. velutinus cannot be made a nomen oblitum as it fails to meet the criteria ofICZN 23.9.1.1. because this name was used as valid after 1899 (by Portevin 1925, 1926a).We are currently attempting to determine the month of publication for these two works,which might show that Weber's name is the older, and thus valid name; however, if this isnot true then we will put this case before the Commission of the ICZN for a ruling underthe plenary power to preserve stability and retain N. tomentosus as the valid name, which itcurrently is not. The ICZN (23.9.3) states that while such a case is under consideration“use of the junior name is to be maintained.”Nicrophorus ussuriensis Portevin, 1923Type locality: “Ussuri” [Russian far east: S. Maritime territory; Ussuri River? borderof ne China & Russia; label]Type depository: MNHN: Paris [!] holotype femaleDistribution: Oriental & Palearctic: China, Korea, Russia: Ussuri1923 Portevin: 233 (key, descriptions in French) >> Orig. comb.: Necrophorusussuriensis [!N, S]182 © 2002 Magnolia PressSIKES ET AL.