Hello all

I have been silent for a long time, (some of the early subscribers should
remember me) the last 18 months or so haven't been the best for me and as a
consequence I have felt guilty that I haven't done lots of other things so
I haven't tended to answer questions on the email that I might have been
able to answer etc (on more than 3 occassions I have had over 700
unread/new messages on my account).

However,  I have just been given a scholarship for the next 2 1/2 years to
do my PhD, which is basicly looking at a group of land snails found in and
around Sydney as well as the rest of coastal New South Wales, Australia.
The bulk of the thesis will be devoted to issues relating to taxonomy and
conservation of one of the three species of land snail currently listed as
endangered in New South Wales - Meridolum corneovirens. This means that I
will be better able to deal with things as I won't be constantly worrying
about where money will be coming from and when it might come.

So to all of you I owe things too (please bear with me a little longer I
have not forgotten).

Anyway I better get to the reason I am writing this note. I have copied all
the molluscan articles out of the Proceedings of the Zoological Society,
London (one of my favourite old journals)  from its first volume to about
1855 so far.

And looking at the article in question which is -

1841, Soweby, GB, Jun., Descriptions of some new species of Murex,
principally from the collection of H. Cuming, Esq. Proc Zoo Soc Lond
1840:137-147

The name is given as Murex Saulii  Conch. Illustr. f. 77. followed by a
latin descriiption which is among the more lengthy in this paper.
He gives the location as: ad insulam Capul, Philippinarum. H. Cuming legit.
Mus. Saul, Stainforth, Reeves.
 With the following note: It is somewhat surpising that this species should
not have been distinguished ere this from M. Palmarosae, from which it
differs in having a smooth inner lip, and in having small projecting fronds
on the varices between the larger ones.

It is certainly not clear from the description which is not unusual for
this period to indicate who the shell is actually named after. For example
the preceeding species is Murex Banksi Conch. Illustr, f. 82. with no
indication of who this might be or any acknowledgement such as for my
friend etc

The species mentioned in this paper are as follows:
Murex occa, Murex messorius, Murex rectirostris, Murex nigrescens, Murex
pliciferus, Murex plicatus, Murex formosus, Murex mindanaensis, Murex
elegans, Murex similis, Murex scabrosus, Murex banksi, Murex saulii, Murex
torrefactus, Murex palmiferus, Murex corrugatus, Murex laqueatus, Murex
canaliferus, Murex cancellatus, Murex capensis, Murex trialatus, Murex
emarginatus, Murex monoceros, Murex fasciatus, Murex varius, Murex
tumulosus, Murex varicosus, Murex digitatus, Murex megacerus, Murex
falcatus, Murex inermis, Murex balteatus, Murex cyclostoma, Murex
breviculus, Murex peruvianus and Murex noduliferus all figured in Conch
Illustr. and as spelt.

It would seem obvious that Sowerby made a mistake, but from what is written
it can not be argued that he did and the name should still remain as M.
saulii and not M. sauliae or M. saulae.

I can think of an example of this sort of error from the recent literature:
Martin Snyder named Fusinus anni in 1986 after his wife Ann, the mistake
was by the author and the correct name is still F. anni.

Regards

Stepanie Clark




******************************************************************************
Stephanie A. Clark

Invertebrate Identification
Unit 4/17 Morris Street
PO Box 418
Summer Hill, NSW 2130
Australia

phone  61 (02) 9799 5689  fax  61 (02) 9799 5610  mobile  0412 372388
email [log in to unmask]