Comment On The Proposed Confirmation Of Unavailability Of The Name Fusus Helbling, 1779 (Mollusca, Gastropoda)

2 Pages·1992·0.58 MB·English

by  Richard E Petit

.
BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature49(3)September1992 221
CommentontheproposedconfirmationofunavailabilityofthenameFususHelbling,
1779(Mollusca,Gastropoda)
(Case2729;see BZN48: 92-96,244-246;49: 68-70)
Richard E. Petit
P.O. Box30. NorthMyrtleBeach,South Carolina29582, U.S.A.
DruidWilson
859EastOsceolaAvenue,Lake Wales,Florida33853, U.S.A.
Wewishto replytopublishedcommentsopposingourapplicationfortherejection
ofFi/5W5Helbling, 1779.
Holthuis(BZN48: 244-245)comments thatall ourargumentsare basedon specu-
lations about Helbling's concepts and also quoted Hemming's statement about
'...intermediatetermsidenticalincharacterwiththosewhichitisnowaskedshouldbe
rejected...'. Iftermswhichare'identicalincharacter'canberecognized,whycannota
termnoteven'identicalincharacter'bemoreeasilyrecognized?
Yokes (BZN 48: 245-246) attempts to discredit our application by reference to
CommissionactionsuppressingXancus[Roding], 1798infavorofthelater Turbinella
Lamarck, 1799, an action opposed by all malacologists who wrote a comment.
However,Yokesquoted Keen's 1957statement aboutthe'supposedlyfirmgroundof
priority'. Itisthisfirmgroundthatweareseekinginthisapplication.
Yokes also made the statement that 'every relevant work published in the last 60
years has used Fusinus...\ ignoring references in paragraphs 14 and 15 of our
application.
WeparticularlyobjecttothestatementmadebyBeu,Marshall&Ponder(BZN49:
68-70) that since 1906 '... the usage ofFusinus in this sense has become the normal,
thoroughly accepted practice by 100% ofmalacologists and paleontologists'. This is
contrarytoreferencesgiveninparagraphs 14and 15oftheapplicationandadditional
usagesofFususBruguiere. 1789asavalidnamecanbeeasilylocated.Asearchofonlya
fewminuteslocated suchusagebyNickles(1950), Knudsen(1956). Pasteur-Humbert
(1962), Barnard (1959, 1969), Ondrejickova (1972) and Kensley (1973). A thorough
searchoftheliteraturewouldcertainlyuncovermoreusagesofFususBruguiere.
Itisouropinion that theonlyobjection to thisapplicationwith anyvalidityis that
it will upset 'stability'. The genus typified by the species Fusus (or Fusinus) colus
(Linnaeus, 1758) has not been critically monographed, or even studied in depth, in
recent years and it is a matterofconjecture at this point as to howmany species will
remaininthegenusafterataxonomicrevision.
Additionalreferences
Barnard, K.H. 1959. Contributions to the knowledge ofSouth African marinemollusca. Part
2. Gastropoda: Prosobranchiata: Rhachiglossa. Annalsofthe South African Museum.45:
1-237.
Barnard,K.H. 1969.ContributionstotheknowledgeofSouthAfricanmarinemollusca.Part6.
Supplement.AnnalsoftheSouthAfricanMuseum.47:595-661
Kensley,B. 1973.Sea-shellsofSouthernAfrica.Gastropods.225pp.Cape&TransvaalPrinters,
CapeTown.
.
222 BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature49(3)September1992
Knudsen,J.1956.MarineprosobranchsoftropicalWestAfrica(Stenoglossa).Atlantide-Report,
4:7-110.
Nickles,M. 1950.Mollusquestestacesmarinsdelacoted'Afrique.269pp.Lechevalier,Paris.
Ondrejickova, A. 1972. Eggenburgian molluscs ofSouthern Slovakia. Zbornik Geologickych
ViedZapadneKarpatw 16:5-147.
Pasteur-Humbert,C. 1962.LesmollusquesmarinstestacesduMaroc.Cataloguenoncritique. 1.
Lesgasteropodes. TravauxdeilnstitutScientifiqueCherifien,SerieZoologie,23: 1-224.
CommentsontheproposaltoremovethehomonymybetweenCLAVIDAEMcCrady,
1859(Cnidaria,Hydrozoa)andCLAVINAECasey, 1904(MoIIusca,Gastropoda)
(Case2710;seeBZN48: 192-195;49: 144-145)
(1) JohnK.Tucker
404S. BankerStreet, Effingham.Illinois62401, U.S.A
I am unable to agree on the need for the proposals ofCernohorsky, Cornelius &
Sysoevconcerningthemollusksubfamilyname.
The issue at stake is the maintenance ofnomenclatural stability and the authors
contendthattheirproposedactionwillachievethis.Applicationsofthisnatureusually
involvetheconservatioiiofanameasithasbeenusedbuttheirproposalintroducesa
newspelling,clavusinae.
I understand the desire to preserve the Powell (1942) system ofsubfamily classifi-
cation in the turridae and how that might seem to be related to nomenclatural
stability, but it is my belief that the proposals will neither preserve nor improve
stabihty. Iftheauthors believe that Clavusde Montfort, 1810cannot becontained in
the DRiLLiiNAE then they should define the characters that separate clavinae (or
clavusinae) from Olsson's 1964(and Morrison's 1965, p. 2)drilliinae. I myselfdo
not believe that nomenclatural stability exists in theturridae at the subfamily level.
Every author who has considered a subfamily classification has come to a unique
conclusion,andnotallauthorsworkingongenerausuallyincludedintheclavinae(or
drilliinae) recognize the subfamily as valid; for example, Nordsieck (1968) placed
Clavusintheturrinae(althoughin 1977hechangedhismind).
It seems to me that the turrid name clavinae does not need Commission action."
Most post-Powell authors who recognize the group do so primarily on the radular
morphology. McLean (1971), in particular, defined the clavinae as based on the
possession of a prototypic radular type. If, as most authors agree, the prototypic
radularstateisanancestralconditionthentheclavinae(ordrilliinae)aredefinedby
a plesiomorphic character state. Only apomorphic character states can be used to
determine monophyly. Therefore, from a cladistic point of view, the clavinae (or
drilliinae)iseitheraparaphyletic orpolyphyletic taxon. Ican seeno benefit froma
ruling concerning the name ofa taxon that will almost certainly be found to include
multiplesistertaxathatgaverisetotheothersubfamiliesoftheturridae.
Additionalreferences
Morrison,J.P.E. 1965.OnthefamiliesofTurridae. Report.AmericanMalacologicalUnion,32:
1-2.