> All too often I have had that feeling - l"why doesn't anyone get it?"
> However, can you give us the basis for your assertion: "Seraphidae (note
> that Seraphsidae is incorrect)..."?
>
> It seems that some of the people who tried their hardest to get it right
> (Jung; Bouchet and Rocroi) concluded with the "incorrect" spelling.
>
> Bouchet, P. and J.-P. Rocroi, 2005. Classification and nomenclator of
> gastropod families. Malacologia 47(1-2): 1-397.
> Jung, P., 1974.  A revision of the family Seraphsidae (Gastropoda:
> Strombacea). Paleontographica Americana 8(47): 1-72 + 16 pls. Nov. 25.
>
> Harry

Hi Harry

www.stromboidea.de/?n=Species.Seraphidae

Opinions:

    * G. Kronenberg: The name Seraphidae (originally spelled as
Seraphina) Gray, 1853 is correct. Seraphsidae Jung, 1974 is a junior
synonym, Jung being unaware of the name proposed by Gray
    * G. Rosenberg: the correct spelling of the family name is
Seraphidae, not Seraphsidae. The genus Seraphs was named by Montfort,
1810. He did not give a derivation, but gave the French equivalent as
"Seraphe". Therefore it is clear that the final "s" of Seraphs is not
part of the root of the word.

I seem to remember in a paper by Klaus Bandel the same vcomment as
Gary's. Possibly the paper in which he erected Pugnellidae.

--
Regards
Andrew Grebneff
Dunedin
New Zealand
Fossil preparator
Mollusc, Toyota & VW van fan

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