Ed,

In all three cases Tursch reports that the type material could not be found
and the shell names should be considered nomen dubium (pp. 446, 455, & 457
respecively). So I just  made choices from the other possibilities, choosing
in each case the names given by Burch & Burch (1960).
Therefore , O. hemiltona = O. elegans, O. h. octavia = O. neostina, and O.e.
othonia = O. tigrina Lamarck.
Next to Dr. Tursch, I regard the work of the Burches much more highly than
the simply listings of Wagner & Abbott, Zeigler & Porreca, or Petuch &
Sargent.
Burch 7 Burch, in their description of O. elegans (Minutes 182, p.19 ,
include a quote from Tyron (Man. Conch) giving good reason that O. hemiltona
should be a synonym of O. elegans.
Of course, you may retain the names on your labels since a mere name does
not change a shell in any way. I do not have either of the forms of O.
elegans in my collection, but I  simply added a note to my labels for O.
hemiltona, giving the above reference page numbers.
As a final note, I am amazed that there are only three, out of so many
names, that can't be nailed down. What  an astounding amount of research
went into T & G (2001).

Winston Barney
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barbara Haviland" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 9:49 AM
Subject: Do anyone know


> To all Olive lovers help.
>
> I have gone through the olive book by Tursch et al, and having changed
> labels and checked every olive in our collection which is over 6,000
> specimens, I have found that I now do not have names for the following
> olives that were previously known as:
>     O. hemiltona Duclos 1840
>     O. elegans octavia Duclos 1845
>     O. elegans othonia Duclos 1845
>
> I hope someone can help me here. I have collected over 50 years, as now I
am
> 89 am still looking for something new.
>
> Ed Haviland
>