This message is send by Ruud Bank on behalf of Philippe Bouchet (both are MB editors):

Dear Bill,

I have added in WoRMS / MolluscaBase a Nomenclature note under both Conus floridanus and C. anabathrum:

https://www.molluscabase.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=420200

https://www.molluscabase.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=429079

ICZN Opinion 1539 (Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 46(2): 140) has ruled that the name Conus floridanus Gabb, 1869, is not to be given precedence over Conus anabathrum Crosse, 1865, by those authors considering that the two names refer to the same species. However, it has not declared Conus floridanus invalid or unavailable, and it remains a potentially valid name. The revalidation of the species Conus floridanus by Berschauer (2022) is nomenclaturally perfectly permissible.

I hope it clarifies the case.

With best regards,

Philippe Bouchet

From: Conchologists List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bill Fenzan
Sent: maandag 19 september 2022 13:19

In 1987, Walter Ccrnohorsky proposed to the ICZN conservation of the name Conus floridanus Gabb, 1869. The next year, 1988, M. G. Harasewych and R. E. Petit published comment on this proposal arguing in favor of keeping the name Conus anabathrum Crosse, 1865. The case (2563) was decided in opinion 1539 published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) dated June 1989. This opinion supported use of the name Conus anabathrum rather than Conus floridanus.

Tha change by WoRMS to “accept” Conus floridanus again seems to have been made based on publication of an article in Xenophora Taxonomy, a supplement to Xenophora, which is the magazine of the Association of French Conchologists. There is nothing in the article to indicate that the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology has also been changed from the decision made in 1989, so I am keeping my labels with Conus anabathrum. In my opinion, the April 2022 article is only an unsupported opinion. That an editor for WoRMS used it to “accept” a taxonomic change without confirming acceptance by the ICZN indicates a quality control problem for WoRMS, I think.

Hope this helps.

Bill

William Fenzan

On Sep 18, 2022, at 11:42 PM, Robert R. Fales wrote:

WHAT is heaven’s name is going on with the Florida Cone?

For years it was Conus floridanus Gabb, 1869. Then one day it supposedly became Conus anabathrum Crosse, 1865, by priority. Now I see on WoRMS that Conus anabathrum has been superseded by Conus scalaris Valenciennes, 1832, but isn’t Conus scalaris a Pacific Ocean species? And . . . WoRMS now has Conus floridanus Gabb, 1869, back as an “accepted” name.

So, is Conus floridanus Gabb, 1869, now back as our good old Florida Cone?

Thanks for any clarification.

Bob Fales