[Taxacom] shortest description

[David Campbell]

"Excellent" seems much more likely than "thin", but given that nothing
else is said it, a pedant could argue that either interpretation is
possible.  The members of the genus are rather small for eating and
likely to carry parasites.

Given the lack of information about Benson's taste in lymnaeids, I
don't know what he would think is "fine".



On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Richard Zander
<Richard.Zander at mobot.org> wrote:
> Hhhhm. So "fine" is not an acceptable description? Where do you draw the line? Does fine mean excellent or thin? If the latter it is morphologically informative, if the former, maybe the author ate a sample and it was a chemistry trait?
>
> Probably everyone should use common sense and ignore stupid descriptions and treat the names as nomina nuda, as you do, but to do that, you need to just do it and assume no one will bother wasting time discussing it at some later date. If you discuss it, it will never go away until someone proposes to formally list the name as an execration in the Code.
>
>
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * *
> Richard H. Zander
> Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
> Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
> Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of David Campbell
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 12:18 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] shortest description
>
> 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
>



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