[Taxacom] shortest description

Francisco Welter-Schultes fwelter at gwdg.de
Fri Feb 25 12:57:08 CST 2011

> 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)

I would not recognize "fine" or "beautiful" as a description in the sense
of the Code. These features have no true scientific content.

> 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?

I would do the same as you did.

The time gap between 1836 and 1880 is large. Sherborn did not list it,
Westerlund 1885 zero, so possibly available from Kobelt 1880 (where?


More information about the Taxacom mailing list