Some critical notes regarding in publications and the validation by WoRMS, with caurica elongata as one example

by M.C. van Veen, March 2021

Introduction

Correct taxonomy requires foremost the consultation of the literary works by the authors of and subspecies, and often this means that centurues old books are most important. In modern empirical science recent publications take precedence over older ones, because ongoing research requires current observation and data. Taxonomy however has a more fixed character; descriptions of validated species carry the signature of their authors like novels carry the signature of their writers. Once the species is validated, its description is a domain that does not allow free interpretation.

To clarify matters, this article starts with some basic fundamentals of taxonomy: the binomial system and the usage of author names in species and subspecies. Then the focus shifts to a more advanced subject: the dichotomy between morphology and phylogeny, and the need to bridge the gap between both.

Next part is about taxonomic information retrieval on the internet, with the focus on WoRMS in particular. The acronym WoRMS stands for: World Register of Marine Species. It is an online register that aims to be the most authoritative taxonomic source of marine species, and possibly it has already achieved this goal in the eyes of many. But the work methods and the integrity of its editors are questionable at best, including the way the internet is being used as an information highway.

Several species and subspecies, especially Erronea caurica elongata, serve to illustrate the inconsistency and even the malpractise on WoRMS and in current literature.

Binomial nomenclature, literally: a two-name system of naming

Even though Wikipedia has got a good page about this subject, it might be useful to outline the basic principle behind naming species. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_nomenclature)

Binomial nomenclature is a formal way of naming species in Latin, according to a system that divides the name into two parts: the first part is the genus name, the second part is the species name. Sometimes a third part is added, which makes it in essence trinomial: the subspecies name or the variety name.

The name of the author comes after these two or three names, together with the year this author actually described the species or subspecies.

Example: Linnaeus described the species caurica in 1758. Cypraea caurica is a species of belonging to the family . According to the binomial system it is written like: Cypraea caurica Linnaeus, 1758. genus: Cypraea species: caurica author: Linnaeus, 1758. Note that 'Linnaeus, 1758' is not just a name with a year, it is an actual publication. Publication is always required in order to formally validate and establish any new species or subspecies. If a species is formally registered, like in this case Cypraea caurica, it means that the description of Linnaeus has been validated. (This was already done centuries ago.) It also means that Linnaeus, as the author, cannot be contradicted or disagreed with, because his words were made valid. It is more or less like the author of any given novel: the book cannot be contradicted because only the author has a say in the way the story is told.

If a species or subspecies is validated, it means its description is sufficient enough to set this (sub)species apart from other (sub)species, sometimes in combination with one or more type specimens. Regarding molluscs, type specimens are usually the first seashells on which the discovery of a new (sub)species is based, and those are mostly donated to a museum to formally establish and record the new species.

Originally Linnaeus called the abovementioned species Cypraea caurica, but nowadays it is called Erronea caurica: the genus name has changed from Cypraea to Erronea. In the 18th century, when Linnaeus introduced this species, the different genus branches were still absent because taxonomy was still in its infancy. There was only one generic genus under the family Cypraeidae, and this genus was called Cypraea. The genus Erronea had not been established until more than a century later, by Troschel in 1863. The binomial system requires the author's name to be placed in parentheses after the genus officially had been changed into Erronea. The author's name in parentheses always signifies that the genus originally had a different name. That is the only meaning those parentheses have.

Officially this species is now written like: Erronea caurica (Linnaeus, 1758), and Linnaeus is of course still the author of the species.

Cypraea caurica Linnaeus, 1758 changed into Erronea caurica (Linnaeus, 1758), and Cypraea stercoraria Linnaeus, 1758 changed into Trona stercoraria (Linnaeus, 1758).

The addition of a subspecies or variety to a binomial name

Lamarck introduced a supposed new species Cypraea rattus in 1810. In his description he specified its morphology to be distinct from Cypraea stercoraria but also hinted at great similarities between both.

The rank of the name rattus has now been shifted from species to variety level. Currently this variety, called Trona stercoraria var. rattus (Lamarck, 1810), has not been validated yet. Nevertheless, Lamarck is the one shown as the author instead of Linnaeus: Lamarck introduced and specified rattus as being distinct, and therefore he got authorship. It is precisely this distinction that sets a new subspecies or a new variety apart from the main species, and this provides the basis for its validation.

Another example of a variety is Cypraea pantherina var. albonites Melvill, 1888, which is a white variety (the Latin word 'alba' means 'white'). The main species is Cypraea pantherina Lightfoot, 1786. In this case the genus has not been changed, because it is a true Cypraea, just like . The main species of the latter is Cypraea tigris Linnaeus, 1758, and the white variety is called Cypraea tigris var. chionia Melvill, 1888 (the Greek word 'chióni' means 'snow'). Mellvill introduced both varieties in 1888 with the aid of type specimens (syntypes), which still exist today: Cypraea pantherina var. albonites type specimens reside in the National Museums Liverpool, catalog nr. LIVCM.1942.22 [1035] and Cypraea tigris var. chionia type specimens reside in the National Museum Wales, numbers NMW.1955.158.266 and NMW.1955.158.267.

Because these type specimens have an obvious different colour than the specimens of the main species, the description of these varieties remains virtually absent in Melvill's work; the type specimens themselves show the distinction.

However, the World Register of Marine Species seems to reject these (colour) varieties. The abovementioned varieties of Cypraea tigris and Cypraea pantherina have now become invalid. This also counts for the iconic Umbilia hesitata var. howelli (Iredale, 1931), which is an all white variety of the main species Umbilia hesitata (Iredale, 1916): it cannot be found on WoRMS.

WoRMS mentions that a double name is an alternate representation of the main species: Umbilia hesitata can be written as Umbilia hesitata hesitata. But WoRMS mentions that Umbilia hesitata hesitata is a subspecies, as can be seen below:

Even though it is portrayed as merely an alternate representation, the double name suggests the insertion of a subspecies level, under which the variety level is now placed. Common use is: genus name - species name - subspecies or variety name. But here the suggestion is: genus name - species name - subspecies name - variety name.

One point of concern is that this might force a variety to become a branche of subspecies, so that it can no longer exist as a direct branch of the species itself. This also means that the third name always has to be the name of a subspecies, and this subspecies has to be validated before a variety can even be assigned.

If the variety howelli is to remain in existence as a variety of the main species, according to this idea it can only remain valid after the triplet Umbilia hesitata hesitata. As a variety of the main species, the entire name would become Umbilia hesitata hesitata var. howelli, where the second 'hesitata' has become a subspecies of the first 'hesitata': the species has become a subspecies of itself. The ICZN code stops at the subspecies level and omits the variety level, which could be the reason why WoRMS seems to reject varieties and also stops at the subspecies level. One consequence of this is that a substantial body of knowledge has now become obsolete.

Then there is question which criteria are used to determine if a taxon should be regarded as a subspecies or regarded as a variety instead. WoRMS shows a lack of consistency if it comes to criteria for accepting and rejecting varieties. It is far from clear if this lack is a case of work in progress, or instead a case of double standards because different editors have different work methods. The website does mention for example the two varieties Trona stercoraria var. rattus (Lamarck, 1810) and Trona stercoraria var. tumulosa (Meuschen, 1778), which are directly placed under the species level, without the insertion of the subspecies level. Both varieties are registered as 'taxon inquirendum', which means that these varieties have not been rejected - yet.

It must be noted however that Trona stercoraria var. tumulosa (Meuschen, 1778) is a fictional variety: Meuschen's Cypraea tumulosa came from the Gronovius collection, and three years later (in 1781) Gronovius published his own book in which he stated that Cypraea tumulosa originated from America, not . (while Trona stercoraria is a Senegalese species.)

Meyer's phylogenetic tree

Figure 6 on page 141 in Meyer (2004) shows a phylogram, but there are a number of issues with the presentation of this phylogenetic tree:

1. Assuming that each of the subspecies are valid, the phylogram doesn't show the actual specimens, and therefore any claim that a given subspecies belongs at a certain place in the tree cannot be verified. In other words: Meyer does not substantiate the identification of his specimens and therefore the reader cannot tell if his identifications are correct.

Figure 1 on page 5 in in Feng et al. (2015) shows a similar tree, but it is about the molecular phylogeny of Arcoidea, especially species of the family Arcidae. One difference with figure 6 in Meyer (2004) is that Feng made an attempt to substantiate the names in the tree with actual pictures of the different species.

Correct species identification is required if the phylogram is to have any significance at all. Although presented with the right intention, the pictures shown in Feng's phylogenetic tree are too small to be recognisable for most readers and it is also unclear which picture belongs to which species name. Feng's identifications could have been based on comparison with type material at best, but at worst it could be that his identifications are just information clones without any type verification at all. In the latter case one can only hope that the copied species names from other sources are correct.

The phylogram by Feng et al. (2015) shows names like Scapharca subcrenata (Lischke, 1869), Anadara crebricostata (Reeve, 1844), and Anadara globosa (Reeve, 1844).

Scapharca subcrenata is a synonym for Anadara kagoshimensis (Tokunaga, 1906), which is currently the official name for the species. And the name Anadara crebricostata has been assigned to an endemic Australian species, even though its description is unavoidably similar to the Chinese and Philippine species Anadara fultoni (Sowerby III, 1907) - which is the species Feng intended to show. Even though Feng does not show a picture of Anadara globosa, it is part of his phylogenetic tree, and it remains the question how this species was interpreted regarding its morphology.

Figure 5 in Lutaenko (2013) shows Reeve's two syntypes of Anadara globosa, which reside in the Natural History Museum in London, register nr. 1969166. Both specimens look morphologically different from the depictions of 'Anadara globosa' and 'Anadara globosa ursus' in other works, which resemble Anadara disparilis (Reeve, 1844) instead. Sometimes correct species identification is hard to attain, and then the question is whether a species name in the phylogenetic tree has been sufficiently verified. If not, the phylogenetic relationship with its morphological identification cannot be validated.

2. Molecular phylogenetic studies seem to be more advanced and more accurate than the old Linnaean classification, which is based on morphology instead if phylogeny (phenetics versus genetics). But the reality is that species have been validated on a morphological basis, and therefore the genetic (molecular) signature of a species can only be based on its correct morphological identification. Once this genetic signature has been established it can serve as a template for future comparisons.

The figure below illustrates the dependency on morphology:

There is the possibility that recently found specimens could be wrongly identified morphologically, followed up by molecular extraction. Subsequently the sample would then be stored as a genetic template for future comparison, but with the wrong species or subspecies name attached to it.

Several of such faulty templates could be created and then stored in different genetic sequence databases, with the result that species identification based on genetics becomes unreliable. Similar to a type specimen in a museum depot, there should be only one molecular template that serves as a 'genetic type specimen', to avoid the dispersion of incorrect information clones which only create increasing confusion in the end.

3. The third issue is the validation of Meyer's species and subspecies. Meyer shows a large list of subspecies in his phylogenetic tree, but he does not substantiate their validity. He does not mention the morphological specifics of any of them, nor does he give an explanation as to why he decides to identify them the way he does.

On page 142 in Meyer (2004) there is only the assertion: "Newly added individuals from and form a haplotype clade that I recognize as Erronea caurica elongata."

He assigns this haplotype clade, which exists as a genetic signature, to a (sub)species which is validated on the basis of a morphological signature. The gap between the genetic and the morphological signature must be bridged: the question arises whether a genetic template of Erronea caurica elongata already existed, and if Meyer compared this template with his haplotype findings, in order to position this subspecies correctly in his phylogram.

The answer to this question is no. Even though Erronea caurica is a valid species, based on a morphological description, Erronea caurica elongata is a fictional subspecies that is conjured up from thin air, as is explained below. In fact Meyer's entire cladogram and phylogram can be questioned, because any haplotype clade assignment to any subspecies might be based on nothing more than unfounded assertions.

The supposed subspecies Erronea caurica elongata

One of the chief editors on WoRMS decided to validate the suggestion made by Lorenz (2017), who introduced Erronea caurica elongata as a new subspecies.

Below is a screenshot of the WoRMS page: Perhaps most remarkably, even though the author of Erronea caurica elongata is listed as Perry (1811), there is no reference to this work: the tab 'Sources' only shows two recent publications.

Contrary to common use in academia, taxonomy often requires the consultation of the original antique works instead of recent publications. Only the original shows the description on which validated of the species or subspecies. This is most important from a taxonomic perspective and that is why the omission of Perry (1811) is so curious.

Lorenz' title reads: "A new subspecies of Erronea caurica..." This can only imply that Perry (1811) made a hitherto unknown distinction between the main species and this subspecies. If Perry, as the author, did not make that distinction then a subspecies could not come into existence simply because there wouldn't be a description of it. In that case Lorenz should have introduced a new name for the subspecies and claimed authorship for himself, since no-one else before him made the distinction.

But instead Lorenz claimed Perry (1811) to be the author of the subspecies Erronea caurica elongata, and therefore logically Perry's work must be consulted first. Below the text and the depiction in Perry (1811).

Cypraea elongata on plate 22, figure 5

Back in 1811 all of the species in the family Cypraeidae still had the generic genus name Cypraea. Since many collectors and researchers wrote their works independently, a species was often described by multiple authors and was published under different names - there were many synonyms. Usually the name in the oldest publication became the official name of the species (seniority).

Cypraea caurica (now the genus name is Erronea) was originally described by Linnaeus in 1758, 53 years prior to Perry's Cypraea elongata. The question that should be asked is whether Perry described a subspecies or just Linnaeus' main species instead. Both Perry's description and depiction are so basic that no difference can be perceived between Linnaeus' main species caurica and Perry's elongata. Not even the slightest distinction can be found, it's just a synonym.

Why Lorenz (2017) shows Perry as the author is unclear, and why WoRMS decides to uncritically accept this narrative is suspicious to say the least. A second example.

A similar case can be found on WoRMS regarding a species in the , brunneus (Link, 1807). Perry (1811) named this species Triplex flavicunda.

Below is a screenshot of the WoRMS page:

Here we have an identical stuation as with Cypraea elongata, but here Perry's species is registered as just a synonym, as it should be.

Below the text and the depiction in Perry (1811).

Triplex flavicunda on plate 4, figure 2 Again, Perry presents us with a basic description and depiction, with no sign of distinction between brunneus and flavicunda. Nowhere in literature can the fictional subspecies Chicoreus brunneus flavicunda (Perry, 1811) be found, and rightly so: it would be an unsubstantiated claim.

Returning to Meyer's phylogram, it now becomes apparent that its validity is questionable. Erronea caurica elongata is non-existent and there could be many more of such fictional subspecies.

Noteworthy is also the case of Cypraea pardalis Shaw, 1794. Explicitly described by Shaw as a synonym for Cypraea tigris, Lorenz (2017) just thought otherwise and presented this as a new subspecies as well, just like Erronea caurica elongata. Again it was the same editor on WoRMS who decided to make this opinion the new scientific standard: and so it just became the subspecies Cypraea tigris pardalis Shaw, 1794.

This is a contradictio in terminis: because Shaw is presented here as the author, it implies that he described it as a subspecies. But in reality Shaw described it as a synonym. . One subtle detail is the name 'pardalis' itself, which translates to 'leopard'. Shaw explicitly wrote: "The Tiger or Leopard Cowry," which already suggests synonymy, and nowhere in his description does he make any distinction between the two whatsoever. The reason why Shaw it presented as Cypraea pardalis (Leopard Cowry) instead of Cypraea tigris (Tiger Cowry), was because of his audience. In late 18th century England Cypraea tigris was known as 'The Great Leopard', as Born (1780) already mentioned before Shaw introduced his synonym. Shaw did nothing more than simply capitalise on a commonly used name.

It would be interesting to know how Lorenz came to his assertion. If he found a new subspecies of Cypraea tigris, then why did he come up with this unfounded claim instead of introducing a new name for the subspecies and also claim authorship for himself?

An introduction to WoRMS

Below the first paragraphs of the 'About page' on WoRMS. Added are the numbers (1), (2) and (3) for commentary purposes.

" The aim of a World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) is to provide an authoritative and comprehensive list of names of marine organisms, including information on synonymy. While the highest priority goes to valid names, other names in use are included so that this register can serve as a guide to interpret taxonomic literature. The content of WoRMS is controlled by taxonomic and thematic experts, not by database managers. WoRMS has an editorial management system where each taxonomic group is represented by an expert who has the authority over the content (1), and is responsible for controlling the quality of the information (2). Each of these main taxonomic editors can invite several specialists of smaller groups within their area of responsibility to join them (3). "

(1) This is one of the problems of WoRMS: control is based on suggested expertise, not based on actual content as such. This is a well known fallacy that is called 'appeal to authority,' which describes an appeal to a false authority as evidence for a claim. The concept of authority in this respect should be seen in the light of authorship of a species and the inherent validity of his description, and not perceived as a high ranking figure who dictates the supposed truth. A claim can only be supported by evidence, not by unfounded assertions, and this also counts for the opinions of 'experts'. However, the editors on WoRMS present themselves and other 'expert' liaisons as the true authorities. They have written peer reviewed papers and books on which they have build their status, and they will automatically receive support for their work by their colleague-friends. The peer review procedure is either completely absent or far from unbiased. It's an inner circle of self appointed authorities who back each other without any critical analysis regarding content; assertions are enough to declare their works scientific. This gives them the status of demi-gods, and have therefore become the embodiment of science itself. In reality however they are false authorities; because they often grossly ignore literary works, which they obviously do not value at all because they dictate what real science is. We can find the true authorities in the very books they choose to ignore. Any serious scientific paper requires a list of references, and also requires content that corresponds with those references. And spreading disinformation under an author's name is no less than forgery. The very fact that WoRMS states: "...who has the authority over the content," shows that this organisation does not handle the definition of 'authority' very well. They seem to confuse it with the word 'authoritarian'.

(2) The so called 'experts' are "responsible for controlling the quality of the information". It shows that controlling behaviour is not about quality of information, but is instead a goal in itself. Also, responsibility is not about scientific integrity, but about the social obligation these 'colleagues' have toward each other, who are often long-standing friends.

(3) The picture gets even clearer with this last statement: the editors can invite anyone who they consider suitable to participate. The way WoRMS operates is authoritarian, arbitrary and also susceptible to favoritism. Even though the editors claim that WoRMS does not make taxonomic decisions, the reality is that these editors decide which papers and books will be put forward as true scientific works. More than once the claim has been made that WoRMS only registers published "state-of-the-art," as if it's a detached and neutral organisation, which is not true. The fact it is called "state-of-the-art" implies that taxonomic renewal is a desirable art and should automatically be regarded as an upgrade. Contrary to empirical science, which requires ongoing observations and also demands the consultation of the most recent papers, taxonomy has a more static character: often species have been validated centuries ago and this information still stands to this day. The point is that validation of a species also means that both the description and the author have become fixed in literature, their words stand and cannot be changed on a whim. And talking about art, Parth's book about Chinese snuff bottles is now registered on WoRMS as a scientific work on taxonomy, likely because Parth is a good a friend of a particular chief editor on WoRMS. Unfounded claims about the species Lotoria perryi (Emerson & Old, 1963) created an excuse to change its name into Lotoria triangularis (Perry, 1811), and WoRMS just made it official by arbitrary decision.

SAS: Speed, Agression, Surprise

In combat, overpowering an opponent comes with three tactical principles: speed, agression and surpise. If two of those principles are met, the third one usually follows. In the malacological world, with WoRMS at the core on the internet, especially speed and agression are the main ingredients for a surprise attack.

The inner circle of 'expert' friend-colleagues can forward their agendas unhindered: expert A writes a book, editor B on WoRMS makes it the new scientific standard regardless, shell dealer C promotes A's new book and A in turn promotes C because in A's book species suddenly branch off into 'state-of-the-art' new subspecies - which are then 'scientifically validated' and can therefore get a new price label each. Also, shell dealer C provides numerous photographs from his online shop to editor B, who is then promoting C's business with WoRMS itself. And good friends of associated organisations join the fray as well by using WoRMS as the most authoritative source. It's a self-promoting and self-serving merry-go-round.

Below the promotion of a shell dealer on WoRMS: four of the seven links will redirect the viewer to a shop. The fictional subspecies Cypraea tigris pardalis has even got 49 links to the same shell dealer.

Meanwhile, the new 'scientific standards' go malignantly viral at an unprecedented speed and scale. This is the how fiction becomes reality: institutionalise the narrative across the entire world until it's 'established science' and nobody dares to question the validity of it anymore. The syndicate of our esteemed 'experts' protect its vested interests with aggressive and swift global infiltration. So much for science...

On the next page two screenshots depicting fried air in genetic sequence databases: two organisations, ENA and GenBank, which have already registered Erronea caurica elongata, which is a fictional though an aggressively and swiftly estabished subspecies... Surprise! Literature list on the next page. References

Born, I.E. von (1780) - Testacea Musei Cæsarei Vindobonensis, 442 + [17} pp, 18 plates. Page 182.

Emerson, W.K. & Old, W.E. (1963) - A new subgenus and species of Cymatium (, ). American Museum Novitates, no. 2137: 1-13.

Feng, Y., Li, Q., Kong, L.(2015) - Molecular phylogeny of Arcoidea with emphasis on Arcidae species (Bivalvia: Pteriomorphia) along the coast of China: Challenges to current classification of arcoids, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Feb 2015.

Gronovius, L.T. (1781) - Zoophilacium Gronovianum, 1763-1781, 380 pp, 20 plates. Fasciculus III, page 288, nr. 1259.

Iredale, T. (1916) - On some new and old molluscan names, Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 1916-1917, 12(1): 27-37

Iredale, T. (1931) - . Australian molluscan notes. Nº I. Records of the Australian Museum, 18: 201-235, 21 June 1931.

Lamarck, J.B.P. (1810) - Annales du Muséum d'histoire naturelle, 1810, Vol 15, 497 pp, page 451, nr 10 and nr 11.

Lightfoot, J. (1786) - A catalogue of the Portland Museum, VIII + 194 pp.

Linné, C. von (1758) - Systema Naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Editio decima, reformata [10th revised edition], vol. 1: 824 pp.

Lischke C.E. (1869) - Japanische Meeres-Conchylien. Teil I, 1869: 192 pp., 14 plates.

Lutaenko K.A., Volvenko I.E. (2013) - On the fauna of bivalve mollusks of Hong Kong (South China Sea). Bulletin of the Russian Far East Malacological Society, 2013, v. 17, pp. 79-141, page 92.

Melvill (1888) - Memoirs and Proceedings of The Manchester Literary & Philosophical Society, 1887-1888, Series 4, Vol.1, 282 pp, 2 plates, page 212.

Meuschen, F.C. (1788) - Museum Gronovianum Sive Index Rerum Naturalium, 1778, VI + 251 + [2] pp. Page 107, nr. 1046.

Meyer, C.P. (2004) - Toward comprehensiveness increased molecular sampling within Cypraeidae and its phylogenetic implications, Malacologia, 2004, 46(1): 127-156.

Perry, G. (1811) - Conchology, or the natural history of shells: containing a new arrangement of the genera and species, illustrated by coloured engravings executed from the natural specimens, and including the latest discoveries. 4 pp., 61 plates. London.

Reeve, L.A. (1844) - Monograph of the genus Arca, Conchologia Iconica Vol 2, 1844.

Shaw, G. (1794) - The naturalist's miscellany Volume 6, 1794-1795.

Sowerby, G. B., III. (1907) - Descriptions of new marine Mollusca from New Caledonia, etc., Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, Volume 7: 299-303, plate 25.

Tokunaga, S. (1906) - Fossils from the environs of Tokyo, Journal of the College of Science, Imperial University of Tokyo, Japan, Vol. 21, 1906-1907.