[Taxacom] shortest description

[David Campbell]

In general, very minimal descriptions are recognized as qualifying
under the letter of the zoological code, though not the spirit of it.

I have a species of interest (Lymnaea bulla Benson, 1836) for which
the original publication gave a detailed locality description and said
there were two new species there.  He only described one of the two,
however.  bulla is only mentioned in passing in the description of the
other species, and the only description of it is the uninformative
word "fine".  (The text has butta; corrigenda makes it bulla)

Kobelt (1880) cited Benson's name but also gave a figure and a
description, unfortunately with a much more vague locality.

I have interpreted Benson's name as nude because there is no
description of the species and thus regard the valid name as bulla
Kobelt.  Other opinions?

Kobelt based a new genus-level name on the taxon, hence the interest.
Probable senior synonyms exist at the species level (with a caveat
about possible cryptic species).

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
The Paleontological Research Institution
1259 Trumansburg Road
Ithaca NY 14850