CONCHOLOGIA

NUMBER FIVE A name too far! Richard E. Petit1 & John K. Tucker"

1 806 Saint Charles Road, North M yrtle Beach, South Carolina 29582, U.S.A. email: [email protected]

" Illinois Natural History Survey, 1 Confluence Way, East Alton, Illinois 62024, U.S.A. email: [email protected]

This is a review of "Taxonomic review of the Lamarck has been sparsely used itself as a Conns spectrum, Conus stramineus and Conus valid name. The genus Conus has long been collisus complexes (Gastropoda - Conidae) - broken up with new genera created for vari­ Part I" by R. M. (Mike) Filmer, published in ous distinct groups. Current work on the Visaya 3(2): 23-85, dated July, 2011. Our origi­ family Conidae has resulted in even more nal intent was to point out the introduction genera being introduced. This was known to of a nomen novum that we consider to be the author as he stated that: unnecessary. After studying the paper we "The recent publication by Tucker & found other items that would, hopefully, Tenorio (2009), proposing the re-classifi- have not appeared had the paper undergone cation of the genus Conus into a number a review. UnfortunatelyVisaya is not a peer- of new genera, has not been applied in reviewed journal, although we are aware that this study but mention is made of its some authors send their papers off to associ­ effect, where appropriate, for those wish­ ates for comments before they are submitted ing to implement it." to Visaya. The first item addressed will be the and nomen novum and comments on other items "Röding in 1798 introduced the genus will then follow in order of appearance in the Cucullus in place of the genus Conus. Due paper. to Tucker & Tenorio (2009)Cucullus is a A nomen novum was introduced by junior synonym ofConus. This [sic; = Filmer (2011: 31, 33) to replace Conus lacteus Thus] in this work all Röding's names Lamarck, 1810 non Cucullus lacteus Röding, appear in parenthesis as (Röding) to con­ 1798 [listed asConus lacteus (Röding, 1798) form to the rules of the International by Filmer]. Code of Zoological Nomenclature The nominal species Cucullus lacteus (ICZN) 4th edition." - Filmer 2011: 24 Röding, 1798 has not, since its inception, To state that Tucker & Tenerio were in some been used in a taxonomic work as a valid way responsible for this synonymy of species. It has long been known to be a sen­ Cucullus with Conus is disingenuous as the ior secondary homonym ofConus lacteus synonymy has been known since Röding's Lamarck, 1810 when both are placed in the names first came into acceptance. Cucullus genus Conus. However, Röding's name has was never used as a valid name. Secondary never been used as valid.Conus lacteus homonymy sometimes occurs asCucullus

PUBLISHED BY PRELUM CONTRA MUNDUM PO BOX 30. NORTH MYRTLE BEACH. SC 29597. USA CONCHOLOGIA INGRATA $ NO. 5 and Conus have the same type species and replacement name Conus purissimus Filmer, nothing in the work of Tucker & Tenorio had 2011 is a nomen vanum and the applicable any effect on that relationship. name for the taxon is Asprella lacteus The generation of numerous genera (Lamarck, 1810) if it is considered to be a for species long placed in Conus is not new, valid species. There is the possibility that it just expanded as our knowledge of them has may belong to the morphologically similar increased. Even a century and a half ago var­ genus Phasmoconus, but it cannot be a ious genera were employed, even by scientif­ Dendroconus. To make it clearer, the name ic dealers such as the Hamburg firm Conus purissimus cannot be used by anyone Museum Godeffroy. In their 1869 Catalog who places Conus lacteus Lamarck and (Schmeltz, 1869) are listed species ofConus Cucullus lacteus Röding in different genera using five subgenera in addition to the (ICZN Article 59.2). nominotypical genus, and also the full gen­ Page 23. There is inconsistency in the era Cylinder, Nubecula, Hermes, Dendroconus way authors and dates are treated as an (with one subgenus), and Leptoconus (with unconventional form, "C. chinensis (Röding), two subgenera) Why some modern workers 1798", is used for various nomina. do not recognize these genera is not known, Page 23. This paper is stated to be Part I especially as such subdivision gives much in a series of three parts. The Abstract con­ information about feeding habits which in tains data for all three parts. In Part II we turn adds to their usefulness in biodiversity may expect the new speciesConus moolenbee - studies. Certainly various genera in Conidae ki and in Part III Conus balbacensis is to have long been utilized by many authors. appear. These two names appear again in the Filmer justified the introduction of a General Introduction but are not to be found replacement name for Conus lacteus Lamarck elsewhere in the paper. There is no prohibi­ with the statement: tion in the Code against introducing nomina "However as C. lacteus Lamarck is a nuda but there is no good reason for doing so homonym of C. lacteus (Röding, 1798) unless the author is so misguided as to think (based on the assumption that Cucullus is that introducing these names here gives him a synonym ofConus, see introduction) it some sort of ownership of them. If and when requires a new name (nomen novum)." - these names are validated, all future Filmer 2011: 33 chresonymies of them will have to begin We will not discuss the International Code ofwith extra lines showing the usage of these Zoological Nomenclature except to comment nomina nuda. that although it has little specific comment The "when" in the last sentence above about secondary homonymy, it does have a was used purposely as this journal,Visaya, is lot to say about stability and prevailing issued "on an irregular basis as manuscripts usage. The two names in question are not become available." Since its inception in 2004 congeneric unless both are forced into the Visaya has averaged just fewer than two genus Conus. issues per year. Given its cost (this issue is In any modern classification, Conus Iac - ?36 [approximately = US$51] plus postage teus Lamarck would becomeAsprella lacteus from overseas) it is unlikely that there will be (Lamarck) and could not be a homonym of a spate of issues in the near future. This Röding's taxon which, if placed in use, delay, of unknown duration, has a negative would be Dendroconus lacteus (Röding). To effect on the value of the paper. One of the reiterate, it is our considered opinion that the good points of this paper is that page refer­ ences are given for many citations in the text, PAGE 2 CONCHOLOGIA INGRATA $ NO. 5 making them easy to find in the respective lished] references. However, there is no References As pointed out by Petit (2009: 21), this Cited as Mr. Filmer advises (page 56) that problem is easily solved by reading the intro­ "Acronyms and Bibliography will be given at ductory matter to theConchological the end of Part III of this series on Conus.” It Illustrations where authorship is determined. is thus quite possible that one may have to All Conus species dating from the wait until 2013 to look up something men­ Conchological Illustrations are attributable to tioned in this paper if it is in an unfamiliar G. B. Sowerby I. reference. No justification for this lack comes Page 26. There is a reference to "Shikama to mind. (1963-64, p. 119, fig. 80)." Unless by some While this paper was in preparation the strange coincidence there is another work succeeding issue of Visaya appeared. with the referenced species on the same page Although dated "August 2011" it was issued and plate, this is a reference to Shikama & on 21 September 2011. Nowhere therein is Horikoshi, Selected shells of the world illustrated there mention of Filmer's Parts II and III. It is in colours, published 15 December 1963. Such notable that this issue contains two papers uncertainties underscore the need for com­ on Conidae in which the species are placed prehensive references in each part. in the genera Virgiconus, Calamiconus, Page 29. Figured on page 29 are the Dauciconus, Purpuriconus, Gradiconus, Chemnitz figures which represent Conus chi - Jaspidiconus and Lindaconus. The genus Conus nensis (Röding, 1798). They are, unfortunate­ is used for only one species and its sub­ ly, taken from a poorly colored copy of species. Chemnitz. Filmer cannot be faulted for this, Page 24. After dismissing the work of as few people have the luxury of referring to Tucker & Tenorio, Filmer states that "no more than one copy, but in this instance his doubt future work on the animal, its radula photographs can be compared with a copy at and especially the study of DNA may well hand. Filmer states that "The possibility result in different conclusions...." Ignored is exists that this is a specimen not in the genus the fact that the arrangement of Tucker & Conus.” As already shown, Filmer declined Tenorio is based primarily on radula charac­ using the latest classification available and ters and derived using cladistic methods, states that he is placing all species in Conus. with all other known characters also consid­ Therefore this statement indicates that he is ered. In the Foreword to Tucker & Tenorio's of the opinion that Röding's figure does not book, Antonio Monteiro presciently wrote "I represent a species of Conus sensu lato. am sure that amateur collectors will have Filmer's treatment of genera is confus­ rather a hard time adapting to the classifica­ ing. As already mentioned he did not use tion." any genus other than Conus, choosing to Page 24. Under Methodology appears ignore the recent work of Tucker & Tenorio, the statement: as well as that of many others who divided "As there is some doubt as to whether the Linnaean Conus. On page 25 he states the names published in the that "four of the species named herein fall Conchological Illustrations (1833-1841), into the new genusAsprella Schaufuss, 1869" (Conch. 111.) were named by G. B, and "Tucker & Tenorio also list a consider­ Sowerby I or his son G. B. Sowerby II or able number of other species undertheir by both together this author attributes genusAsprella. ..." On the next page it is them to both as "Sowerby I & II"." - stated that Conus spectrum was placed in the Filmer (2011: 24) [punctuation as pub­ new genusAsprella by Tucker & Tenorio PAGE 3 CONCHOLOGIA INGRATA $ NO. 5 (209, p. 83) [emphasis supplied]. Not only is are simply copied from labels in the Museum Asprella not a "new" genus as is obvious collection and are meaningless without see­ from its date of 1869, but it has been in gen­ ing the specimens that the labels accompany. eral usage for many years. The "methodolo­ Page 33. Filmer states: "This author does gy" permitting this "new" genus to be attrib­ not agree with other authors that C. lacteus is uted to Tucker & Tenario is unfortunately a synonym, color form of C.spectrum but is symptomatic. convinced that it is a valid taxon differing Page 32. Here and elsewhere in this significantly from C. spectrum by the charac­ paper reference is made to synonymies listed teristics mentioned above." Readers are not by Trew (1982). These have been determined told when or why Filmer changed his opin­ to be references to the Conus part of the ion as in 2001 (pages 157-158) he stated that Handlists of the Melvill-Tomlin Collections. C. lacteus Lamarck is "a synonym (colour Inappropriate citation of these lists was form) of C. spectrum Linnaeus, 1758." The recently addressed: reason for this reversal, other than the oppor­ "During the period 1981-1996 the tunity to manufacture a new name, would National Museum of Wales published a certainly be of interest. series of lists of the contents of the con­ Pages 37-38. About C. conspersus it is chological collections of J. C. Melvill and stated that "Tucker & Tenorio (2009, p. 83) J. R. le B. Tomlin. In the introduction to place it in the genus Asprella and rename it C. the first part Dr. Graham Oliver stated conspersa, to conform with the generic name." that the Handlist series had been This is our first experience with a mandatory designed for the purpose of disseminat­ change in gender (Article 31.2) being consid­ ing information on the contents of these ered renaming. two collections. He further clearly stated Page 42. In this paper, as with so many that "information contained in the of its type, no distinction is made between Handlists should not be quoted without taxonomic works and lists of taxa. reference to the specimens as the identifi­ Throughout the paper Wagner & Abbott cations have not been checked and (1978) is treated as a taxonomic work remain those of Melvill and Tomlin." although it contains no original data. As stat­ This introductory caveat was also in later ed by the authors in their Preface, it "is not a issues. In short, they are lists of the col­ scientific text-book ... nor an identification lections using the names on the specimen manual. It is a Catalogue of the marine mol- labels; some are not even dated. lusks." Filmer (page 43) cites it as giving the Unfortunately some later authors did not location for Conus pica Adams & Reeve as read the introductory material. In recent Borneo. That is simply the original locality as years the names in these Handlists have already shown by Filmer (page 42). The been picked up and placed in various point is that the interjection of Wagner & lists being compiled on the web. Abbott into the discussion is simply "win­ Fortunately it appears that the incorrect dow-dressing" as it adds nothing and attributions and nomina nuda in the implies additional data when it is simply Handlists have not, as yet, been trans­ copy work. Filmer figures three syntypes and ferred from those sites to a print medi­ three varieties for Conus pica. Not mentioned um. For that reason, and in view of Dr. is whether or not additional syntypes are Oliver's introduction, theHandlists are extant. Adams & Reeve figured dorsal and not cited herein." - Petit (2009: 58) ventral views of two specimens but did not In briefer terms, the "synonymies" in Trew state how many were collected. Their Figures PAGE 4 CONCHOLOGIA INGRATA $ NO. 5 lOc-d are of the shell in Filmer's Figure 15, REFERENCES CITED the plate and photographs matching exactly. Filmer, R. M. (2001) A catalogue of nomencla­ Adams & Reeve's Figures lOa-b, a specimen ture and taxonomy in the living Conidae which has only two slight touches of color, is 1758 - 1998. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden. not mentioned by Filmer but it may be the 388 pp. shell shown as a variety in Figure 18 oriented Filmer, R. M. (2011) Taxonomic review of the in a different manner with the marking bare­ Conus spectrum, Conus stramineus and ly showing. All Adams and Reeve specimens Conus collisus complexes (Gastropoda - are syntypes and cannot be relegated to Conidae) - Part I. Visaya, 3 (2), 23-85. "variety" status until a lectotype is designed, International Commission on Zoological should such be necessary. Nomenclature (1999)International Code of In summary, this paper will be of interest Zoological Nomenclature. Fourth Edition. to eone collectors as it contains 29 full page I.T.Z.N., London, xxix + 306 pp. color plates of shells in addition to numerous Lamarck, [J. B. P. A. de]. 1810. Suite des text figures, including some type specimens. espèces du genre Cône. Annales du Most of the synonyms listed have long been Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 15, known as such, but some are new such as the 265-286. placement of Conus petergabrieli Lorenz, 2006 Petit, R. E. (2009) George Brettingham as a synonym ofConus dolium Boivin, 1864 Sowerby, I, II & III: their conchological which in turn is listed as a color form of publications and Molluscan taxa.Zootaxa Conus pica Adams & Reeve, 1848. 2189,1-218. In conclusion, we make the following Röding, P. F. (1798)Museum Boltenianum s ive observations. Proposals such as replacing a Catalogus cimeliorum e tribus regnis naturae little used junior secondary homonym with­ quae olim collegerat foa. Fried. Bolten, out reference to modern taxonomy should be M.D.p.d. Johan. Christi. Trappii, avoided regardless of technical correctness. Hamburgi. 199 pp. We will continue, therefore, to use the combi­ Schmeltz, J. D. E., Jr. (1869)M useum Godeffroy. nation Asprella lacteus (Lamarck) or, should it turn out that the type specimen actually is an Catalog IV. Wilhelm Mauke Söhne, Hamburg, xxxix + [iii] + 139 + [2] pp. Phasmoconus, then Phasmoconus lacteus (Lamarck). There is zero probability that it is Shikama, T. & Horikoshi, M. (1963). Selected a Dendroconus. The generic identity can only shells of the world illustrated in colours. be determined by examining the radula of Hokuryukan, Tokyo. 8 + 102 pis. (with specimens when they become available. overleafs) + 154 pp. Second, it should go without saying that Trew, A. (1982) Conacea (Conidae). Part 10, publication in outlets that are not peer- Series 1, The Melvill-Tomlin Collection. reviewed carries risk. It may seem that Handlists of the Molluscan Collections in the avoiding peer review makes things seem eas­ Department of Zoology, National Museum of ier, but it puts an extra burden on would-be Wales, [1-2], 1-28, i-ix, [1], authors. In such publications there just is no Tucker, J. K. & Tenorio, M. J. (2009)Systematic one to help catch the mistakes or challenge classification of Recent and fossil Conoidean the science. It then becomes the author's Gastropods. ConchBooks, Hackenheim. 296 pp. responsibility to be even more careful. Wagner, R. J. L. & Abbott, R. T. (1978) Standard catalog of shells. Third edition. American Malacologists, Greenville, Delaware. Looseleaf; irregular pagination. PAGE 5 CONCHOLOGIA INGRATA $ NO. 5

NOTE Although no nomenclaturaI action is taken in this paper, this note is to declare that it is being published for the permanent scientific record and copies are being sent to numerous systematists and institutions. It is being reproduced in ink on paper in over fifty simultaneously produced identi - cal copies. It is also being made available as an electronic file. Conchologia Ingratais available without charge.

Back issues ofConchologia Ingrata Available free of charge from [email protected] No. 1. Petit, R. E. 2008. ICZN Article 9.1 - Why? 4 pp. No. 2. Petit, R. E. & Callomon, P. 2009. The distressing case of Polyhomoa itoi Azuma, 1949 andKyidris mutica Brown, 1949. 4 pp. No. 3. Petit, R. E. 2011. Reprint of Lamarck's 1816 "Liste des objets". 19 pp. No. 4. Petit, R. E. 2011. A review of Rare and Unusual Shells of the Florida Keys and Adjacent Areas by Edward J. Petuch and Dennis M. Sargent, 2011. 5 pp.

PAGE 6