Hi all,
Connected to this one:
In 1962 R.T. Abbott described Strombus (Canarium) wilsoni after:
"This species is named after the australian malacologist, Dr. Barry Wilson,
and also after Mr. Wilson Darwin of Philadelphia." (Abbott, 1962.
Indo-Pacific Mollusca 1(7): 455.
As far as I can interpret the ICZN regulation as quoted in Harry'snote,
this should be considered as an incorrect original spelling, and the
specific epiteth should be emended to "wilsonorum".
Another one is distorsio graceiellae.
This species was named by Mr. Manfred Parth (yes, the very same one who
described Bufonaria borisbeckeri) explicitely after two women, viz.:
"I dedicate the name to my first wife Graziella Pierantoni (Milano, Italy)
and to my future wife Grace Marcos (Palawa, Philippines): D. grace(iellae)"
[sic] .
So, one would expect "gracearum" or "graziellarum" or something alike.
But, as more or less indicated, the names of the two ladies are not the
same, and therefore the specific epiteth "graciellae" can (?must) be
considered as an "arbitrary combination of letters" (ICZN art. 11.3), and
is to be considered as an correct original spelling.
Gijs
----------
> Van: Harry G. Lee <[log in to unmask]>
> Aan: [log in to unmask]
> Onderwerp: Re: Saul
> Datum: zaterdag 29 januari 2000 20:42
>
> Dear Stephanie, Wayne, et al.,
>
> Thanks to Stephanie, we have another piece of the jigsaw puzzle.
According to
> the third edition (the fourth is hot-off-the-press, on order, and not
likely
> any different on the matter at hand)of the ICZN, Article 32(b) "incorrect
> original spelling (can be emended) if... (ii) there is in the original
> publication itself, without recourse to any external source of
information,
> clear evidence of an inadvertent error..." It goes on to cite an
example...
> "douglasi in Eptesicus douglasi, said to be named after Marion and Athol
> Douglas, is an incorrect original spelling that must be corrected to
> douglasorum."
>
> Although G. B. Sowerby II didn't exactly state he was naming Murex Saulii
[sic]
> after Miss Jane Saul, it is quite obvious that he knew of a specimen(s)
of this
> new taxon in her (then already famous; now at Cambridge, UK) collection.
> Placing myself in a contemporary readership and considering the author's
renown
> as a "shocking latinist," I would argue that Reeve's emendation of the
> specific name to "Sauliae" was "justified" (ICZN-speak for kosher), but
it a
> isn't an "air-tight case" (and G. B. S.'s linguistic deficiencies might
be
> deemed "irrelevant" to the nomenclatorial argument in an ICZN
proceeding).
>
> I presume the actual date of publication of the original description of
Murex
> Saulii [sic] in Proc. Zool. Soc. London was 1841; or was it 1840?
>
> Did Snyder (1986) actually say he named Latirus anni for his wife? Can
you
> provide the reference?
>
> Harry
>
> Ref.: Ride, W. D. L., C. W. Sabrosky, G. Bernardi, R. V. Melville, J. O.
> Corliss, J. Forest, K. H. L. Key, and C. W. Wright, 1985. International
> code of
> zoological nomenclature. Third edition. Univ. Calif., Berkeley, xx + pp.
1-338.
> Feb.
>
>
> At 03:12 AM 1/30/00 -0800, you wrote:
> >Hello all
> (cut)
> >I have copied all
> >the molluscan articles out of the Proceedings of the Zoological Society,
> >London (one of my favourite old journals) from its first volume to
about
> >1855 so far.
> >
> >And looking at the article in question which is -
> >
> >1841, Soweby, GB, Jun., Descriptions of some new species of Murex,
> >principally from the collection of H. Cuming, Esq. Proc Zoo Soc Lond
> >1840:137-147
> >
> >The name is given as Murex Saulii Conch. Illustr. f. 77. followed by a
> >latin descriiption which is among the more lengthy in this paper.
> >He gives the location as: ad insulam Capul, Philippinarum. H. Cuming
legit.
> >Mus. Saul, Stainforth, Reeves.
> > With the following note: It is somewhat surpising that this species
should
> >not have been distinguished ere this from M. Palmarosae, from which it
> >differs in having a smooth inner lip, and in having small projecting
fronds
> >on the varices between the larger ones.
> >
> >It is certainly not clear from the description which is not unusual for
> >this period to indicate who the shell is actually named after. For
example
> >the preceeding species is Murex Banksi Conch. Illustr, f. 82. with no
> >indication of who this might be or any acknowledgement such as for my
> >friend etc.
> (cut)
> >It would seem obvious that Sowerby made a mistake, but from what is
written
> >it can not be argued that he did and the name should still remain as M.
> >saulii and not M. sauliae or M. saulae.
> >
> >I can think of an example of this sort of error from the recent
literature:
> >Martin Snyder named Fusinus anni in 1986 after his wife Ann, the mistake
> >was by the author and the correct name is still F. anni.
> >
> >Regards
> (cut)
> >Stephanie A. Clark
> >Invertebrate Identification
> >Unit 4/17 Morris Street
> >PO Box 418
> >Summer Hill, NSW 2130
> >Australia
> >phone 61 (02) 9799 5689 fax 61 (02) 9799 5610 mobile 0412 372388
> >email [log in to unmask]
>
> Harry G. Lee
> Suite 500
> 1801 Barrs St.
> Jacksonville, FL 32204
> USA 904-384-6419
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Visit the Jacksonville Shell Club Home Page at:
> http://home.sprynet.com/~wfrank/jacksonv.htm
>
> oo .--. oo .--. oo .--.
> \\(____)_ \\(____)_ \\(____)_
> `~~~~~~~` `~~~~~~~` `~~~~~~~`
|
