Date:         Mon, 12 Jul 2004 05:31:37 +0200
Reply-To:     Conchologists of America List <CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sender:       Conchologists of America List <CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         mienis <mienis@NETZER.ORG.IL>
Subject:      Re: New names
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

Since this interesting discussion is becoming too long to answer the previous writers by hitting simply the reply button, I will start a new mail.

Like Robert I 'm also using the name Cornu for Helix aspersa in the combination: Cornu aspersum. For the discussion why Cornu should be treated as a genus different from Helix I refer to Giusti et al., 1995, although they use the name Cantareus instead of Cornu, which they reject as having been based on a teratological specimen.

In my opinion this Article 1.3.2. (Exclusions. Excluded from the provisions of the Code are names proposed) for teratological specimens as such, remains open for rather subjective interpretations. From what has been written sofar one could get the idea that if one describes a teratological specimen deliberately as a new species, then it is considered an invalid name, however, when one refrains of mentioning the fact that anything is wrong/peculiar/aberrant with it, then the name should be treated as a valid name!

Harry stated that Cantareus Risso, 1826 is based on the Mueller species, but according to Giusti et al, 1995, the type of Cantareus is Helix naticoides Draparnaud, 1801, which is a junior synonym of Helix aperta Born, 1778.

Best regards,

Henk K. Mienis
[text/html]