PSEUDOCARDIA CONRAD. 1866. A DISREGARDED NAME IN CARDTTIDAE A. MYRA KEEN STANPORD UNIVERSITY STANF'ORD. CAUPORNIA
Timothy Conrad, although a respected support to that interpretation of the "V. '' and knowledgeable paleontologist of the names in his li st. last century, was at times criticized by other Stoliczka 0871. p. 283). discussing Pseu authors for carelessness in some of his pub docardia. commented: ·'Conrad called lications.* His enigmatic proposal of the some of the Cretaceous species at first generic name Pseudocardia. in an article on Pseudocardia. for which he subsequently new taxa of Recent and fossil mollusks. is an substituted Vetocardia. as the type of which example. Between a paragraph on the fam Venericardia dupiniana d'Orb. can fairly ily Cyprinidae and one on Mytilidae. Con be taken." Most later wor·kers have ac rad (1866, p. 103) had this: cepted this as a valid type designation. Cox CARDITIDAE. (!946, p. 37, note), for example. wrote: PSEUDOCARDIA. Conrad. "Stoliczka selected Venericardia dupiniana d'Orbigny as type." and Eames (1951. p. C. Smidti. Horn, C. Hungari 342) said: "Pseudocardia Conrad. 1866 .. cum. H. , C. Mageri. H .. C. Ha type s pecies: Venericardia dupiniana d'Or uen. H., C. apertunt. Munster, bigny, Cretaceous; Stoliczka, 1871. " Ac C. conjugens, Partch., V. Neo cording to Article 69 (a)(i ii ) of the ICZN comiensis, D'Orb., V. quadrata. Code, " .. an author is considered to have D'Orb., Zittel. V. tenuicostata. designated one of the originally included V. Dupiniana. D'Orb .. V. con nominal species as type-species if he states stantii, D'Orb., V. cotta/dina. that it is the type. for whatever reason, right D'Orb., Sowerby. A V. dubia, or wrong, and if it is clear that he himself genus which became extinct in accepts it as the type-species." This provi the upper Cretaceous Period. sion in the Code would seem to be definitive No specific name was given in full. Nor for fixing V. dupiniana as type, either by was there any description of the genus Stoliczka's designation or by Cox' later ac Pseudocardia - only the statement that it ceptance of it. was of Cretaceous age. One might logically assume the "C." names to be intended as The late Andre Chavan, reviser of the species in Cardita, but no such Cretaceous Carditacea for the "Treatise on Inve rte species have yet been identified by authors. brate Paleontology" (Chavan in Moore, Another interpretation will be discussed be 1969), did not, however, accept Stoliczka's low. The "V ." names can all be recognized designation as valid, for he regarded it as made in an ambif:,.ruou s or qualified manner, ~nder Venericardia , a carditid genus, in the hterature on the European Cretaceous. rejectable under Article 67 (c) of the Code. Some authors at that time used the names He a lso did not accept the designations by Cardita and Venericardia interchangeably. Cox and by Eames, considering that they Three years later Conrad supplied (1869a, merely reflected Stoliczka's "somewhat p. 246) a clue to his concept of Pseudocardia. casual mention of Venedcardia dupiniana" First he pointed out that the name might (ibid. , p. N-553). Instead, Chavan read the prove to be preoccupied by Pseudocardium "C." names as Cardium and selected as Gabb, 1866, which had priority, and if so he type the first nominal species, which he proposed Vetocardia as a replacement. characterized as, "presumed to be an er Then he gave a few lines of description, roneous citation of Cardium schmidti although he still cited no specific name com HOmes." He may well have been correct in pletely. His statement," .. the genus is evi surmising that the "Horn'' of Conrad's "C." dently nearly related to Astarte, though list might be a misspelling of "Horn." [i.e., d'Orbigny refers illo Venericardia", lends Hornes]. In 1851 Moriz Homes had begun a large monograph on the fossil mollusks of the Vienna Basin, and by 1861 he had gotten *A brief account of Conrad's life and a perceptive explanation for the apparent carelessness 1s up to the genus Cardium. Among the 30 given by Ellen J. Moore (1962, pp. 25-271. species of this genus that he discussed, the
41 42 Tulane Studies in Geoloqy and Paleontology Vol. 16 six "C." names li sted by Conrad can be rec publication and by not having called atten ognized ~Cw ith a few minor spelling errors) tion to it either in his next note on Pseudo as Hornes' numbers 16, 17 , 19 , 22, 26, and 30 canlia/Vetocardia or later. lin that order). Even if, however, Stolicz There was no ICZN Code with its clear ka's designation were invalid . Chavan's definition of homonymy in Conrad's day. choice would be ill-advised, for Hornes' Under the provisions of the modern Code, species is a late-Tertiary form, which would Pseudocardia is available. Although he had make that selection contravene the single proposed Vetocardia only tentatively, Con requisite of Conrad's original proposal: that rad seem s soon to have decided to abandon Pseudocardia is a Cretaceous genus. Cha Pseudocardia. He set the stage for confu van in 1951 (p. 112) designated Cardita sion in a second discussion of Vetocardia dupiniana as the type species of a new nom~ (1869b, p. 48). H e re he elaborated on the inal taxon. Ludbrookia. This usage he con description, repeating a part of the earlier tinued in the "Treatise," only making the one but adding details on the hinge of the concession, in the face of protests by col opposite valve from a specimen he had just leagues, that Pseudocardia might be rele received. H e ide ntified the new find as his gated to the status of ''genus dubium." (Cha earli e r-named species Astarte crenalirata van, 1969, p. N-558). Conrad, 1860, which he now allocated to Why would Conrad have bracketed the Ve tocardia. Aga in he characterized the Tertiary Cardium species with the very dif genus as known only in Cretaceous strata. ferent Venericardias he was placing in Later (1872 , p. 52 ) he added yet another Pseudocardia? May it not be that, obviously complication by emending Vetocardia to having studied Hornes' work, Conrad had Vetericardia because of a supposed error. sensed that there was here among the Car Such emendation is not allowable under the diums an unrecognized generic taxon and present ICZN Code, for Article 32 (a)(ii) re that he had started to propose a name for it, quires that any e rror be detectable in the selecting from among HOrnes' 30 species six original proposal. Conrad, not having indi that were to be included in the new group? cated his reason for choice of the name, Surely he would have headed such a para would have had no evidence to prove that graph "Cardiidae," for it is hard to believe he had made a mistake in his spe lling. that as astute a paleontologist as he would Stephenson (1941 , p. 175), not realizing have allocated species of Tertiary Car that the reference he was citing (Conrad, diidae into his new unit of Cretaceous Car 1869b) was not Conrad's first proposal ditidae- surely not the Conrad who was at (1869a) of the generic name Vetocardia. that very period, by virtue of his detailed designated Astarte crenalirata as type knowledge of molluscan morphology and species of V etericardia (= Vetocardia). He geological succession, successfully chal was unaware that this species was not in lenging Gabb's stratigraphic conclusions on Conrad's original list. For the taxon a part of the California Cretaceous. The Stephenson was trying to recognize, which cardiid unit was indeed a good candidate for is indeed a distinct unit morphologically, generic recognition, and it actually was Chavan supplied another name, Veteri given a name a few years later: Lymnocar cardiella (Chavan in Moore, 1969, p. N-552). dium Stoliczka, 1870. Stoliczka designated as type species Cardium haueri HOrnes, Confusion has continued, and the un which had been one of the names in Con needed generic name Ludbrookia is fmding rad's uC. " li st. If this conjecture about Con its way into the literature on Cretaceous rad's intention is correct, then he must have carditids (e. g. , Scott, 1977) because of its decided subsequently not to propose the seemingly legitimate use in the "Treatise." cardiid unit and have deleted any discus Even at the time the "Treatise" revision sion he had prepared . But the list of species appeared, there was available another as did not gel crossed out, and a typesetter sessment of carditid taxonomy, a compila may have been the one who incorporated it tion done independently by H. E. Vokes in an adjacent paragraph. Evidently Con (1967 , p. 257). Here Vokes listed Pseudo rad did not notice this in the proofs, if proofs cardia Conrad as the valid name for a cardi there were, but his carelessness shows up tid unit, with Vetocardia, Vetericardia , and by his not having detected the e rror after Ludbrookia as synonyms. No. I Pseudocardia. a Disregnrded Name 43
One may well ask what action now would Superfamily MACTRACEA best promote nomenclatural stability. Cha Family MACTRIDAE van was unw illing to petition the ICZN for PSEUDOCARDIUM Gabb. 1866 IFeb.l. [tvpe suppression of Pseudocardia. Under the species. Cardium gnbbii Remond. 1863 ~ present rules. it is not a homonym of Pseu Mulinia densaw Conrad~ 1857 1: M]. docardium, diffe ring by more than one let· te r, a nd it a lso differs by the necessary one le tte r from Pseudocardita Oppenheim, 1918, a group in Ca rdiacea. Although Pseudo cm·dia has not been used for the last century ACKNOWLEDGMENTS as a generic name, it does not qualify as a Dr. Eugene Coan, who read an earlier nomen oblitum (forgotten name), nor do the version of this paper, made comments and two satellites Vetocardia and Vetericardia, suggestions that materially aided in clarify· for a uthors have been aware of them, and ing some of the problems. I am grateful for all have been senior to the junior synonym this, and I wish to thank Dr. Harold Vokes Ludbrookia much less than the required 50 for his critical reading of the paper. years. Suppressing the three in favor of Ludbrookia would be an easy way out of the dilemm a, but that course might be less than REFERENCES CITED accepta ble to the ICZN Commission. In the ma tte r of the type-species of Lucina CHA VAN. ANDRE. 1951. Denominations supra spccifiques de mollusques modifiees ou (Opinion 1095, Nov. 1977), the Commission nouvelles: Comptes rendus Somm. Soc. rejected a n attempt to give legal status to geol. France. no. 12 fforJunc 18 1. p. 210-212. another of Chavan's taxonomic usages. CHA VAN. ANDRE. 1952. Nomenclatural notes The ir ruling made clear that mere conveni on carditids and lucinids: Jour. Wa s.hmL.,Jton e nce does notjustify use of the plenary pow· Acad. Sci .. vol. 42, no. 4. p. 116-122 . ers when the basic issue involves a misap CHAVAN. ANDRE. in Moore. ed .. 1969. See plicati on of the p rovisions of the Code. under Moore. R. C. [Card1tidae. p. N-548-N- The foll owing synonymy therefore is sug 558!. gested here for the names discussed. It is CONRAD. T. A .. 1866. Observations on Recent and fossil shells. with proposed new genera congrue nt w ith the published recommenda· and species: American Jour. Conch .. vol. 2. lions of Vokes (1967). pl. 2. p. 101 -103. CONRAD. T. A .. 1869a. Notes on Recent and Family CARDITIDAE fossil shells. with descriptions of new genera [Note no. 2: Note on the genus Pseudo PSE UDOCARDIA Conrad, 1866 !Apr.) !type cardia. with a descript1on of the genus species, Venericardia d11pini.an~ ?rbigny, Verocardial: Ibid .. vol. 4, pt. 4 ffor 1868 1. p. 1843 (plate ex pl.) = Card ita dupmtana Or 246-249 !Feb. 4). bigny, 1844 (text): SD Stoliczka .. 1871 lac· CONRAD. T. A .. 1869b. Observations on the cepted by Cox, 1946! I [ ~ Vetocardta Conrad. genus Asrarte. w1th descnpt1ons of three 1869 (nom. van.); Vetericardia Conrad, 1872 other genera of Crassatellidae: Ibid .. vol. 5. (nom. van.): Ludbrookia Chavan. 1951 (obj.: pl. I. p. 46-48 (July 6l. QD)l [Not to be confused with Pseudocard CONRAD. T. A .. 1872, Descnptions September 17, 1980