Date:         Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:25:40 -0400
Reply-To:     Conchologists List <CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sender:       Conchologists List <CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         "Harry G. Lee" <hglee2@MINDSPRING.COM>
Subject:      Re: A Taxonomic Question
In-Reply-To:  <6C4CF75F1E10468AA76D42A5F4A1C057@home>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

Dear Phil,

The name /Liguus solidus lineatus/ Simpson, 1920
<http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/22858#page/153/mode/1up> was
introduced in the company of a description and references to figures in
two previously-published works: (1) the frontispiece in his book /The
Lower Florida Wilds/ (2) Plate 37, figs. 4c, 4d in Pilsbry (1912), the
title of which Simpson badly mangled (see reference below; this work is
apparently not available on-line).

Unless I'm missing something here, Pilsbry (1921: 140
<http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/17803#page/164/mode/1up>),
besides pointing out the unavailability ("validity" is a different
concept) of the Simpson name under the Principle of Homonymy and
replacing it, restricted the "type" figure designated by Simpson to one
of the latter's two references, a reasonable decision, but one which is
not vitally important to the species' identity since Simpson mentioned a
holotype in his collection and three paratypes (USNM 339108).

*But here is what I think really stinks in Denmark:* Pilsbry took a
second step and designated ANSP 128063 the holotype of/ Liguus fasciatus
simpsoni /Pilsbry, 1921 because it was the specimen figured in Pilsbry
(1912: pl. 37, figs. 4c, 4d). Unless I'm missing something here, this is
a patently invalid type designation. The holotype is a different shell,
likely then still reposing in the Simpson Collection! Until someone can
demonstrate that the Simpson shell is lost or destroyed, it remains the
basis for both /Liguus solidus lineatus/ Simpson, 1920 and /Liguus
fasciatus simpsoni/ Pilsbry, 1921. In its absence, the USNM paratypes
are the default basis for these two taxa.

I feel like Brandon De Wilde watching Alan Ladd ride off in the sunset:
Come back Shane/Dick Petit. We need you!

Clench, W.J. and R.D. Turner, 1962. New names introduced by H. A.
Pilsbry in the Mollusca and Crustacea. /Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia Special Publication 4/: 1-218.

Pilsbry, H.A., 1912 A study of the variation and zoogeography of Liguus
in Florida. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia
second series 15: 427-471, figs. 1-12, pls. 37-40. [not seen; but see
Clench and Turner (1962: 194).

Harry


On 3/21/2012 6:02 PM, Phil Poland wrote:
> C. T. Simpson described and figured a /Liguus/ tree snail in 1920,
> /Liguus solidus lineatus /Simpson. 1920, In South Florida Wilds,
> Frontispiece, fig. 3; Proc. Biol. Soc, Wash., 33: 121.
> H. A. Pilsbry named and chose a new type for the same taxon in 1921,
> /Liguus fasciatus simpsoni/ Pilsbry 1921, The Nautilus, 34: 140. He
> did so because Simspon's name, /lineatus/, was invalid, already in use
> for a Cuban /Liguus/, /Liguus fasciatus lineatus/ (Valenciennes 1833).
> The "new" type is figured in Pilsbry's 1912 work and this figure is
> the basis for /L. f. simpsoni/ Pilsbry 1921.
> References:
> Land Mollusca of North America, 1946, pp. 58 and 59.
> Notes on a Variety of /Liguus/, The Nautilus, 34: p. 140.
> See also Pilsbry's comments on an /unnamed/ "notable discontinuous
> variation" JANSP 1912, p. 462..
> Can this 1912 figure and description of an unnamed shell be taken
> together as a senior synonym of Simpson's 1920 figure and description
> simply because Simpson's name choice was invalid?
> Any answers or ideas would be very much appreciated.


[text/html]