availability of numerous early taxonomic works, most totally unrelated to those initially involved. Fretey and Bour (1980) first challenged the timehonored authorship of Dermochelys coriacea by Linnaeus (1766) by proposing that Vandelli (1761) was the original author. Rhodin and Smith (1982) rejected this proposal on the grounds of nomenclatural unavailability of the Vandelli paper and Vandelli's failure actually to employ the binomen Testudo coriacea, but accepted the new important information on the type specimen and type locality contained in that work and discovered by Fretey and Bour (1980). Bour and Dubois (1984) disagreed with Rhodin and Smith (1982), argued for the nomenclatural availability of Vandelli's work, and reinstated Vandelli as the original author, citing the need to maintain stability of other old names (e.g., Testudo cartilagineus Boddaert 1770) which might become threatened if the same rigorous interpretations of availability as applied by Rhodin and Smith (1982) to Vandelli's (1761) paper were applied to those other old names as well. Bour and Dubois (1984) properly caution against a too rigorous application of the rules of zoological nomenclature when dealing with nomina venerata-names which have been in use for a long time and have become accepted by the scientific community. The underlying principle here is one of nomenclatural stability, and we have at no point ever suggested that long-accepted names be threatened. However, the change in authorship of Dermochelys coriacea from Linnaeus to Vandelli is a totally different matter, because "Vandelli, 1761" has never been an accepted authorship for Testudo coriacea except by Dumiril and Bibron (1835), Bour (1979), and Fretey and Bour (1980), with all other authors both preand post-1835 preferring "Testudo coriacea Linnaeus 1766." As pointed out by Bour and Dubois (1984), nomenclatural stability of Dermochelys coriacea is not threatened by either the Fretey-Bour or the Rhodin-Smith interpretation-merely the authorship. The only advantages pointed out by Bour and Dubois (1984) for acceptance of Vandelli as author (a type specimen and a type locality, which are not clear in Linnaeus' description, although since he cited Vandelli's work the material available to