. Bulletin of zoological nomenclature. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45 In another publication, two years later, Desmarest (1820 : 513) changed the name and called the species Delphinus Pernettyi. He did not indicate clearly he considered his spelling the right one, so in fact "pernettyi" is an incorrect subsequent spelling and therefore nomenclatorially non-existent. But even if we accept that Desmarest intended to correct the name, then it is an unjustified emendation and that thereby the name pernettyi has become a junior objective synonym of Fig. 1. Delphinus
. Bulletin of zoological nomenclature. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45 In another publication, two years later, Desmarest (1820 : 513) changed the name and called the species Delphinus Pernettyi. He did not indicate clearly he considered his spelling the right one, so in fact "pernettyi" is an incorrect subsequent spelling and therefore nomenclatorially non-existent. But even if we accept that Desmarest intended to correct the name, then it is an unjustified emendation and that thereby the name pernettyi has become a junior objective synonym of Fig. 1. Delphinus pernettensis and a seabird, probably a Noddy (Anous stolidus); after Peme(t)ty 1769 & 1770, pi. U. The above-cited diagnosis is very nondescript and can be applied to a number of species of dolphin. Already in 1827 (: 406), Lesson wrote about the species; "Cette espece est douteuse et ne repose que sur une description imparfaite de Pernetty". The species therefore, when cited, was placed incertae sedis and its description mostly ignored or forgotten {nomen dubium). True, in 1884, while describing a dolphin caught off Pensacola, which he thought to be identical with Prodelphinus ( = Stenella) doris (Gray, 1846) but which turned out to be a specimen of Delphinus plagiodon Cope, 1866 (now Stenella plagiodon), compared his animal with the description of Delphinus pernettensis. He came to the conclusion (: 322): "If our Pensacola specimen is to be accredited to any species known only by the exterior, I believe it should be to this D. Pernetyi. As no portions of the animal were preserved, however, and no diagnosis or measurements were given, I think it undesirable to with- draw the species in question from the list of especes ;. Please note that these images are extracted from scanned page images that may have been digitally enhanced for readability - coloration and appearance of these illustrations may not perfectly resemble the original Int
Size: 1957px × 1277px
Photo credit: © Book Worm / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, bookcollectionbiodiversity, bookpublisherlondon
