Comment on the proposed precedence of Bagauda Bergroth, 1903 (Insecta, Heteroptera, REDUVIIDAE) over Pleias Kirkaldy, 1901 (Case 3435; see BZN 65: 93–96) Dimitri Forero Division of Invertebrate Zoology (Entomology), American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY 10024–5192; and Department of Entomology, Comstock Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853–2601, U.S.A. (e-mail: idf2@cornell.edu) I support the proposed conservation of the name Bagauda Bergroth, 1903 over Pleias Kirkaldy, 1901. I agree with Rédei (BZN 65: 94) that adherence to the principle of priority in this case would require many new combinations for species currently contained in Bagauda and such an action would not help the stability of nomenclature in EMESINAE. Furthermore, as Rédei documented, the name Bagauda has been extensively used in recent literature, unlike its senior synonym Pleias. Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of Drosophila Fallén, 1823 (Insecta, Diptera) (Case 3407; see BZN 64: 238–242, 65: 55–56; 137–149) Kim van der Linde Department of Biological Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306–4295, U.S.A. (e-mail: kim@kimvdlinde.com) Gerhard Bächli Zoological Museum, Winterthurerstraße 190, 8057 Zürich, Switzerland (e-mail: baechli@zm.uzh.ch) Masanori J. Toda Institute of Low Temperature Science, Hokkaido University, N19 W8, Kita-ku, Sapporo 060–0819, Japan Wen-Xia Zhang College of Life Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, China Toru Katoh COE for Neo-Science of Natural History, Hokkaido University, N10 W8, Kita-ku, Sapporo 060–0810, Japan Yao-Guang Hu Institute of Low Temperature Science, Hokkaido University, N19 W8, Kita-ku, Sapporo 060–0819, Japan Greg S. Spicer Department of Biology, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, California 94132–1722, U.S.A. 304 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 65(4) December 2008