 
| Subject: | |
| From: | |
| Reply To: | |
| Date: | Sun, 29 Mar 1998 15:07:59 -0500 |
| Content-Type: | text/plain |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Nachricht geschrieben von Conchologists of America List
>Actually, the correct genus is "Euspira" which has precedence over the
genus
"Lunatia" (meaning the name "Euspira" was proposed prior to "Lunatia").
Euspira was introduced by Agassiz in 1838, while Lunatia was established
only
in 1847, by Gray. Thus, the correct name for the beast is Euspira heros
(Say,
1822), with the brackets indicating that the original generic association
(Natica) has been changed.
Cheers,
Michael Hollmann<
Before changing all my labels from "Lunatia catena" to Euspira (and Lunatia
alderi to Euspira pulchella), Iīd rather know exactly about this matter. I
looked through my modest library, and found that Thiele has Lunatia (type
species L. ampullaria (Lamarck)), but doesnīt mention Euspira at all, as do
Nordsieck and Poppe & Goto, while Gert Lindnerīs popular book (1990
edition) has Lunatia Gray 1847 in subfamily Polinicinae and Euspira
Agassiz 1838 in subfamily Naticinae. Why did the array change?
ciao
Michael
|
|
|
