Help with a reference - thanks

[Stephanie Clark]

Dear Robin, Barry, Margaret, Kipling and Wolfgang and others

Thank you for your help so far. I will explain a little more as to what
started this.

I am currently in the final year of my PhD, working on the population
structure, genetics, taxonomy and systematics of a group of Camaenid land
snails largely endemic to New South Wales, Australia and concentrating most
of my studies on one species Meridolum corneovirens which is listed as an
endangered species restricted to western Sydney. And am in the middle of
finalising with the data I have as to what available names both generic and
species are valid etc.

The first time the name Badistes was introduced into the snail world was by
Gould in 1862 in a single line description which basically says because of
the unusual locomotion of Helix gulosa I give it the genus name Badistes.
This was written on the last page of Otia Conchologica which was otherwise
a complication of all Gould's previous papers where he had described new
species of molluscs. And the last page was where is added any taxonomic
changes he thought was relevant at the time.

The next time the name was mentioned that I can find was in the Manual of
Conchology vol 6 I think have only some of the scanned pages handy, 1880
something. Where Badistes was used as a subsection of Hadra.

It was then used as a subgenus name for the species Thersites (Badistes)
meridonalis Gude, 1902 now Cupedora meridonalis.

The next mention is Iredale 1933 when Iredale indicated that the
description of Badistes by Gould was extremely poor and decided to erect a
replacement name Meridolum. However, he chose a different species Helix
jervisensis as its type.

Then Badistes, was mentioned Richardson's 1985 Camaenidae: Catalog of
species and finally Solem, 1992.

Now thanks to Robin we have a carabid genus (at least it is nice that the
beetle family I like the most is the one to keep the name).

Margaret suggested the following

 >The molluscan name may not be in trouble. It's entirely possible that the
 >beetle name Badistes Agassiz, 1847 (which I assume was published in his
 >Nomenclatoris zoologici index universalis, continens [long title] ...) is
 >an unjustified emendation of Badister rather than a valid new name or
 >taxon. It would be good to check the original "description" before jumping
 >to a broad-impact conclusion. If that is indeed the Agassiz reference, I
 >can check it if none of the directly interested parties has access to it.

I certainly would like the full reference for the Agassiz reference or a
copy, as I should also be able to say I have seen it etc.

However Wolfgang suggested

 >Badister CLAIRVILLE 1806 is a valid name of a genus (Carabidae: Licininae),
 >and Badistes AGASSIZ 1846 is an unjustified emendation, hence an available
 >name (Art. 33.2.3. ICZN-4).
 >But: Badistes AGASSIZ 1846 has not been used as a valid name since 1899, so
 >if Badistes GOULD 1862 is in prevailing usage as a valid name, it may be
 >qualified as a nomen protectum (see Art. 23.9. etc.)

Well I have been checking my copy of the code and I think that the name all
be it an unjustified emendation is none the less a valid available name as
applying article 10.6.  I can't use art 23.9 because the current situation
fails article 23.9.1.2.

I have no strong case to use the name Badistes Gould, as the name Meridolum
Iredale has been in wide circulation, so I am happy to accept till I check
the relevant references.

That Badistes Gould, 1862 is a junior homonym of Badistes Agassiz, 1846 and
that Badistes is a junior synonym of Badister Clairville, 1806 and that
Meridolum Iredale, 1933 is a valid replacement name.

Thanks for your help

Regards

Stephanie



******************************************************************************
Stephanie A. Clark

Invertebrate Identification
Unit 4/17 Morris Street
PO Box 418
Summer Hill, NSW 2130
Australia

phone  61 (02) 9799 5689  fax  61 (02) 9799 5610  mobile  0412 372388
email meridolum at ozemail.com.au