CONCH-L Archives

Conchologists List

CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Olivier CARO <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Conchologists List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:14:16 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (54 lines)
Thank you Harry for opening that door, which helps me detecting possible 
targets.

Olivier

Le 25/07/2014 17:44, Harry Lee a écrit :
> Dear Olivier,
>
> I messed up; yesterday I should have written Uzita H. and A. Adams, 
> 1853 rather than "Hima."
>
> Hima Leach, 1852: 122-126) was introduced as a full genus. Its type 
> species (TS), Buccinum minutum Pennant, 1777 [= B. incrassatum Strøm, 
> 1768], was established by the subsequent designation (SD) of Marwick 
> (1931: 115).
>
> However, Woodring (1928: 265) pointed out that Hima is actually a 
> misspelling of Hinia Leach in J.E. Gray, 1847a³: 269, inasmuch as the 
> same three species, Buccinum minutum Pennant, 1777, Buccinum 
> reticulatum Linnaeus, 1758, and Planaxis mollis G.B. Sowerby I, 1823 
> (unnecessarily renamed Hima laevigata Leach, 1852: 126; pl. 10, fig. 
> 1), were originally included in each unit. Thus Hima Leach, 1852 is an 
> incorrect subsequent spelling and thus unavailable for the purposes of 
> taxonomic nomenclature (I.C.Z.N., 1999: Article 33). The TS of Hinia 
> was restricted to Buccinum reticulatum Linnaeus, 1758 by the SD of 
> Cossmann (1901: 204). Since Tritia Risso, 1826: 172 is also based on 
> B. reticulatum [SD Gray (1847b: 139], Hinia is an objective junior 
> synonym thereof and must yield  precedence.
>
> A more elaborate presentation, with bibliography, figures, footnotes, 
> etc., of the above appears on pp. 3-5 at 
> <http://www.jaxshells.org/marapr13.pdf>.
>
> Species included under Hima since Marwick's action seem to be best 
> placed in Uzita; see <http://www.jaxshells.org/julaug13.pdf>. Tritia 
> is not considered synonymous with the latter. The type species of the 
> above three generic units now placed in the Nassariidae are figured in 
> the two linked Shell-O-Gram papers.
>
> While probably not conspecific, your shell bears a certain resemblance 
> to Uzita incrassata (Strøm, 1768). Neither it or any of the other taxa 
> discussed is close to Buccinum arcularium Linnaeus, 1758, the TS of 
> Nassarius Duméril, 1805.
>
> Harry

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2