Dear Harry,

Thanks for the comments, and I’m sorry if the previous post was rather
haphazard. I was thinking about it and just typing whatever came to mind.
I wasn’t able to obtain Rehder’s, so thank you very much for the links
too!

The real issue I have is not whether Lightfoot’s fusca is a nomen dubium.
Rather those were the main reasons given by Garcia and Oliver in support
of using Barbatia fusca (Bruguiere, 1789).

In the description of Arca amygdalumtostum, Roding (1798: 175) made
bibliographical references to Chemnitz (1784: pl. 54, fig. 534) and
the “γ” variety of Arca barbata in Gmelin (1791: 3307) which both
mentioned New World localities. Chemnitz (1784: 186) stated “westindischen
Antillen” and Gmelin (1791) mentioned “etiam in americano” for their
shells. Bruguiere (1789) cited the same references (and more) but also
adds that he has found the shells at Madagascar.

To the best of my knowledge, B. amygdalumtostum has never been applied to
a New World species (probably B. cancellaria, or is there another that
looks similar?). Garcia and Oliver seemed to imply that B. fusca
(Bruguiere, 1789) is in prevailing use, but from my observations, both
names appear to be somewhat equally well used for this common species.

I haven’t been able to find out who first used amygdalumtostum for the
Indo-Pacific species, and I’m wondering if reasons have been given.
Basically I just want to settle on a name to use for this species, and of
course feel comfortable with the reason(s).

Thanks for reading. I would appreciate any information regarding the
matter. All opinions are welcome...


Cheers,

Siong
Singapore

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