Dear Harry,

Your interpretation regarding the raising of ranks is indeed correct, so
there must of been something else which triggered the need to bring in
the ICZN.  Now with regard to Opinion 2031 (Case 2710) dated 30 June
2003, the recognition of Drilliinae Olsson, 1964 was actually a part of
an answer to a seemingly unrelated proposal. Since the abstract of the
opinion is so short I have copied here:

"OPINION 2031 (Case 2710).
CLAVIDAE McCrady, 1859 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) and CLAVINAE Casey, 1904
(Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposal to remove the homonymy not approved.
Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the homonymy between CLAVIDAE
McCrady, 1859 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) and CLAVINAE Casey, 1904 (Mollusca,
Gastropoda) should not be removed. It had been proposed that the
gastropod name should be emended to CLAVUSINAE by changing the stem of
the type genus Clavus de Montfort, 1810 from CLAV- to CLAVUS-. However,
the Commission rejected this proposal because DRILLIINAE Olsson, 1964,
the next available synonym for the gastropod name, provided a
satisfactory alternative that was already being widely used instead of
CLAVINAE for this group of gastropods. No names are placed on Official
Lists or Indexes."

After reading the above opinion, I'm not sure if Taylor et al. were
involved with this case, or if they were aware of it and somehow hedging
their bets with Morrison, 1966.  In any case, I had plan to use Olsson,
1964, as the authority, but did not want to get nailed on my next paper
for that oversight.  I get beat up enough by the reviewers already. :-)

Bret Raines
[log in to unmask]