Dear Bill, Paul, et al.,

Actually the lectotype of Conus aulicus is not in Sweden but in the Gualtieri Collection in the Museo di Storia Naturale, Università di Pisa, Italy, where Robert Moolenbeek discovered it, I believe around 1990. Here is the story: In his own copy of the Systema Naturae of 1758, Linnaeus indicated that he owned a specimen of C. aulicus in his collection. When I studied his collection 200 years later, I found no specimen of C. aulicus. Neither had Sylvanus Hanley a hundred years before (Ipsa Linnaei Conchylia, London, 1855). Thus in the absence of a type specimen, in my 1963 paper I selected as lectotype a specimen that Linnaeus had cited as representing his new species in his original description. This shell was described and illustrated by Gualtieri in 1742. Of course he could not have named it according to Linnaeus's system, which was not yet invented. However, Gualtieri described his specimen and illustrated it in a fine engraving that Linnaeus also cited. I reproduced Gual!
 tieri's image as the representation of the lectotype of C. aulicus. At that time we did not know the whereabouts of Gualtieri's specimen either. However, as mentioned above Robert Moloenbeek located it in the Pisa Museum and kindly provided me with photographs of it. They appear, along with a reproduction of Gualtieri's original illustration, in my 1992 book that Bill cited.

Alan

On Sat, 29 May 2010, Bill Fenzan wrote:

> There is information on your question in:
>
> Kohn, A. J. 1992. A Chronological Taxonomy of Conus, 1758-1840. Smithsonian
> Institution Press, Washington D. C., pp. 315.
>
> The short version is that Linnaeus listed references to illustrations of
> many different cones in the original description.  Each subsequent reviser
> (Hanley in the 1850s & Dodge in the 1950s) noted this but did not take
> action to clarify the situation.  Alan Kohn finally designated a lectotype
> in 1963 when he studied the Linnaean cones and realized that the species
> needed to be better defined.  Ironically, the shell desigated as the
> lectotype for Conus aulicus is not in the Linnaean collection on the
> website, but in the Royal (MLU) collection which is preserved at the
> university in Uppsala, Sweden.
>
> Bill Fenzan
> Norfolk, Virginia, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Monfils" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [CONCH-L] Photos of the Linnaean mollusk collection online
>
>
>> A number of taxonomic questions came to mind in viewing the Linnaeus
>> collection. Just a sample one. Perhaps an explanation on this one will
>> help
>> makes sense of some of my others. The shell labeled "Conus aulicus" is
>> obviously not what we now know as Conus aulicus.  If the pictured shell is
>> the one Linnaeus assigned that name to, how did a different shell end up
>> with that name?
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> [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.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> [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.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>