> Opalia borealis Carpenter, 1864 (ex Gould) was described by Carpenter, 1864
> and is not a nude name there.

Probably some problems with the definition of "nude" are
involved-unfortunately, it's often misused to mean "less than
satisfactory description" rather than genuinely legally unavailable.
I have not gone back to DuShane to check the justification of claiming
that it was nude in Carpenter.

> I am unable to locate a "borealis 'Beck' Lyell, 1842" and a clue to it would
> be appreciated.

The cited date for the Lyell name varies from about 1839 to 1842.
Lyell certainly cites Scalaria borealis in lists, invoking Beck, but I
haven't tracked down any more detailed mention.  One source seemed to
suggest that Lyell had figured it without a name and then later
published the name with reference back to the figure, but I have not
yet tracked down original publications to confirm this-a bibliography
of Lyell would help.  Another made reference to a Lyell paper on the
elevation of Sweden, but I was not able to locate the original
reference (abbreviated citation in a synonomy, which is usually as
much of a citation as one gets in the 1800's).

--
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------