Content-transfer-encoding: |
7BIT |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 22 Apr 2003 21:41:10 +0200 |
MIME-version: |
1.0 |
Content-type: |
text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Sorry! fucillata or -us should be fucilliata or -us, although this does not
change a thing: both words do not exist in latin.
Marien
----- Original Message -----
From: "M. J. Faber" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: P.S. on Amphidromus
> Sherborn (Index Animalium p. 2577) cites "Bulimus furcillatus". This makes
> sense, since there is a latin word furcilla (a little fork) whereas
> "fucilla" does not mean a thing. Besides, there are a few other species
with
> the specific epithet furcillatus -a, -um, and no "fucillata" whatsoever.
>
>
> Marien
> www.mollus.nl
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "lindawbush" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 8:40 PM
> Subject: P.S. on Amphidromus
>
>
> > Sorry!
> >
> > I should have given the author and date on the Amphidromus
> > furcillatus or fucilliatus; it is (Mousson, 1849).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Linda
|
|
|