>My question is, how  is a misprint of this sort corrected.  I thought that
>once it was published, that was it, and I would have expected Ms. Galindes'
>namesake to go down in malacological history as Cerinda.  Can anyone change
>it by pointing out the error, or must  the author petition for a change?
>Darned confusing.  Have at!
>
 
If we look in The Good Book (ICZN), Article 32d reads:
 
Correction of incorrect original spellings. An incorrect original spelling
is to be corrected; it has no separate availabliity in the original form,
and cannot, in that form, enter intro homonymy or be used as a replacement
name.
 
In other words, the author clearly meant to honor Celina, but the species
name was misspelled Cerina. So it is corrected to Celina in the species
name, but Kosuge is still the author (with the original date as well),
regardless of who corrected it or when. The name Cerinamarumai is not an
available name, meaning that someone else could name a shell Cerinamarumai
with no conflict. (Houart synonymized celinamarumai with orchidifloris as
well.) Other cases are not as straight-forward as this.
 
For instance, my learned colleague Dr. Art Bogan and I have argued over
beers for years a freshwater mussel name. Lea in 1838 named a mussel Unio
vanuxemensis, a common Cumberlandian Villosa. But Vanuxem was a person, not
a place, and I contend the name should be corrected to Vanuxemi
(Vanuxemensis implies a place called Vanuxem). Elsewhere Lea called other
species either Vanuxemi or Vanuxemensis. He knew his Latin and this seems
strange. Art argues that Lea was playing a joke, which we just don't 'get.'
Because Lea never corrected the name himself, and used Vanuxemensis
elsewhere, Art doesn't believe the name should be corrected, but that
crusty old Issac intended to use the name in this way. Only a ouija board
or an X-files episode can solve this conundrum.