Another example of forgery in Malacology: Pease's candida arbitrarily used to serve personal interests of 'malacologists'

by MC van Veen, April 2019

In this example I would like to focus on the usage of Cypraea candida which was described by Pease in 1865 [1]. Today, WoRMS classified it as a variety of Cypraea clandestina, a that was described by Linnaeus in 1767

Nowadays the genus has changed into , so officially it becomes Palmadusta clandestina. But the genus name not so important, what is important however is the classification of Pease's Cypraea candida.

WoRMS shows the name Palmadusta clandestina candida (Pease, 1865). Again, here you can see it is below the species level, the third name indicates subspecies, sometimes the third name indicates a variety or a form. This is the system: Genus name – Species name – Subspecies name.

Below is a copy of Pease's description:

The translation is:

Cypraea candida Shell elongated-oval, completely white, the somewhat thickened sides rounded, rounded at the base; the extremities scarcely produced, slightly bent; lengthwise very thinly striated; The opening slightly bent, teeth strong and somewhat spaced, interstices (between the teeth) deeply cut. Length 15 mm, width 8 mm.

The question arises how malacologists were ever able to conclude that Cypraea candida should be a special variety of Palmadusta/Cypraea clandestina. There are no features in the text that set it apart from the normal clandestina because the text only describes common characteristics of the species; there isn't any comparison whatsoever.

Furthermore, Pease's description isn't even conclusive regarding the species! Even though the Cypraea candida shell only measured 15 mm, it could well be that the all white Cypraea eburnea is indicated, even though eburnea is often larger than 35 mm. Pease tells us that the colour is a featureless white, and that the teeth are strong and somewhat spaced. These characteristics fit eburnea better than clandestina, even though the shell is very small.

If even the species can be considered unclear, where is the basis then for calling candida a subspecies of clandestina?

The newest Cowry book goes even further than the subspecies level. It shows the name Palmadusta clandestina moniliaris candida (Pease, 1865). Here it has become a form of a variety of a species...

Originally Lamarck described the Cypraea moniliaris in 1810 [2].

Below is a copy of Lamarck's description:

The translation is:

47. Cypraea moniliaris

Oval, white; developed three faint blotches, teeth near the opening about equal.

Petiv. Gaz. Plate 97 figure 10. [3]

Lives in the . It is probable that this porcelain snail is only a variety of the preceding (Lamarck's nr. 46 is Cypraea asellus). However, it is more swollen, and among the large number of individuals I have observed, none have brown zones, but only a very pale flesh colour. These areas are barely distinguishable on the white background of the shell.

Below the figure in Petiveri's Gazophylacium Again we see a very basic description, this time from Lamarck. He referred to one picture only, and that picture is also very basic as you can see.

Cypraea moniliaris simply seems to be a synonym for Cypraea clandestina. There aren't any specific features that set it apart from clandestina, no differences pointed out. Lamarck only tells us about a large number of individuals of the species. No specification about subspecies. And Petiveri's picture is also very basic, like in a comic book.

So, how can those 'malacologists' classify moniliaris as a subspecies of clandestina? And they do it in Lamarck's name as well, as if Lamarck's publication shows that it is a subspecies. It's like telling that the chapter Genesis in the Bible is about life on the moon instead of the earth.

Back to the Cypraea candida..... This is the new grotesque taxon: Palmadusta clandestina moniliaris candida (Pease, 1865). Here we see that candida has become a variety of the so called – but fake- subspecies moniliaris, and on top of all it is put forward in Pease's name, like it was his idea in the first place!

There is no ground for this taxon to exist. Both Lamarck's and Pease's descriptions only describe very basic features without distinctions; not between subspecies, not between varieties and not even between species (because candida could well be eburnea instead of clandestina).

Another fine example of forgery that leaves malacology in an even greater mess. These people just interpret the literature as they see fit, without ever questioning the validity of their conclusions. In science there is the principle that you cannot base your conclusions on confabulations, and there is also the principle that you are not allowed to lie about what authors have written. The literature does not go below the species level, that is the only valid conclusion there is to make.

References

[1] Pease: Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1865, page 515 [2] Lamarck: Annales du Muséum d'histoire naturelle, 1810, volume 16, page 98 [3] Jacobi Petiveri: Gazophylacium - Opera, historiam naturalem spectantia, 1767, Volume 1, plate 97, figure 10.