Dear Paul,

your statement on the validity of Natica hebraea Martyn is not correct.
While it is true that  the Martyn names from his "Universal Conchologist"
were declared generally invalid, some of those names have explicitly been
readmitted by the ICZN. One of those is Natica hebraea, as I previously
(December 28,1999) explained on Conch-L in an answer to somebody's question.

This taxon was originally published as Nerita hebraea Martyn, 1786, in vol.
3 of the Universal Conchologist, on plate 109. The species is not a nerite
but rather a Naticid, and it's current proper name is Natica (Naticarius)
hebraea (Martyn, 1786).
Note that the publication date at least for this plate of the work is 1786,
not 1784. Not all plates appear to have been published in the same
year.
Natica hebraea  is a common Mediterranean Natica which is often sold under
one of its junior synonyms, such as Natica cruentata Gmelin, 1791, or Natica
maculata von Salis, 1973.
This species being Mediterranean, not all of the Martyn names later
validated by the ICZN apply to endemic species from New Zealand.

The full reference to the decision by the ICZN is:
ICZN (1992) Opinion 1662 Bull. Zool. Nomenclature 49(1): 74-75.

The Philippine specimen Victoriano asked about, if it really originated in
the Philippines, cannot possibly be Natica hebraea Martyn, 1786. The
Philippine species closest in size and pattern to N. hebraea would be Natica
tigrina Roeding, 1798; indeed, I occasionally have seen these two species
mixed up in collections..

Regards,

Michael


--
***************************************************
Prof. Dr. Michael Hollmann
Stockumer Heide 44
D-58454 Witten
Germany

Tel.:   (49)-2302-944-255 (home)
Tel.:   (49)-234-322-4225 (work)
FAX:  (49)-234-320-4225
email: [log in to unmask]
***************************************************