Dear Joshua;
    Although there are many on this list who know far more about such
matters than myself, i see none have so far answered so i will venture a
reply.   When someone decides that a certain specimen or group of
specimens of any particular  organism represent a taxa "new to science"
(ie, not formally named by the interntional scientific community), they
"describe" it by publishing a description of either a holotype (one
specimen chosen to represent the taxa as a whole) or series of synypes
(several specimens similarly chosen, to more thoroughly represent the
taxa (species or subspecies), in a format and a publication officially
recognized by the ICZN - International Commision on Zoological
Nomenclature: the peer-selected body of scientists charged with keeping
some semblance of order in the often semi-chaotic world of zoological
nomenclature.  In the describing process, a name is assigned -
specifically a binomial or trinomial name, depending upon whether the
taxa is believed to be a species or a subspecies (i.e. a geographically
isolated interbreeeding population of a species, which produces a
distinct form, separable from other subspecies and the nominate form by
consistant features)   However, quite often the same taxa is described
several times by different (or even the same!!) people at different
times, who are either unaware of previous descriptions or consider a
form of the taxa in question to be sufficiently different to constitute
a different, previously undescribed species or subspecies.  Hence, any
given taxa can accumulate any number of names in the process, being
described more than once.  //  The general rule of thumb in these cases,
is that the earliest valid description of any given taxa, and its
accompanying name, will be given precidence over subsequent
descriptions. Hence, for example, /Conus atractus/ Tomlin 1937 is
considered a junior (ie, later, hence subservient) synonym of /Conus
compressus/ Sowerby II 1866 - the earliest, hence senior or dominant
synonym for this particular taxa: the one which is to be used in
scientific publications when refering to it, and for curatorial
purposes.  Exeptions have been made, however, when a common taxa has
been known via a certain description (hence name) for a long time before
an earlier valid description comes to light.  In these cases the
well-known name is often kept, since changing it would lead to confusion
and necessitate a lot of curatorial work by museum staff already
overworked.  //  The molluscan record for having been described the
most, hence having the largest collection of monikers, may go to Conus
ventricosus Gmelin 1791 (often known as Conus mediterraneus Hwass,
1792), which as the only cone in Mediterranean waters and highly
variable at that, has accumulated perhaps as many as 100 synonyms over
the past couple of hundred years.
    Hope this clears the matter up at least a bit......

 From New Scotland with a conspicuous lack of concision,
ross mayhew.
(http://www.schnr-specimen-shells.com/)
Subject:
synonyms
From:
Joshua Mervis <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 2 Jul 2007 18:16:41 -0400


Hi everyone - I am a new member of the COA and this is my first post. I
have a simple and bit of embarrassing question. When  synonyms are listed
for a shell, what exactly does this mean? Are the two terms
interchangeable, or does each name represent a distinct species? Thanks so
much for your help

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------