Hello everyone,

Have been lurking for a long time reading all the interesting exchanges.
So finally I have decided to make a virgin post regarding a problem I have
here.

Both Barbatia fusca(Bruguière, 1789) non Lightfoot, 1786, and Barbatia
amygdalumtostum (Röding, 1798) have been considered the correct name to
use for a common brown Indo-Pacific arcid species. I have been using B.
amygdalumtostum for this species and rejecting fusca (Bruguière, 1789) as
it is a junior homonym. Barbatia amygdalumtostum has been consistently
applied to this Indo-Pacific species, and is also accepted by WORMS as
valid.

Recently I came across an argument in García & Oliver (2008) who advocated
the use of B. fusca(Bruguière, 1789), suggesting that the senior homonym,
Arca fusca of Lightfoot (1786), is a nomen dubium, and that B.
amygdalumtostum  actually refers to a West Indies species.

I have checked and indeed the references cited by Röding for
amygdalumtostum suggests that it is a West Indies species, however the
figure in Chemnitz (1784: pl. 54, fig. 534) cited is, in my opinion, the
Indo-Pacific form.

Also if B. amygdalumtostom is indeed a West Indies species, would it not
make it a senior synonym of B. cancellaria (Lamarck, 1819)?

All comments are welcome. Thanks.

Siong Kiat
Singapore

García, A. A. & P. G. Oliver, 2008. Species discrimination in seven
species of Barbatia (Bivalvia: Arcoidea) from Thailand with a
redescription of B. grayana (Dunker, 1858). Raffles Bulletin of Zoology,
Supplement 18: 7–23.

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