. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College. Zoology. 266 Bulletin Museum of Comparative Zoology, Vol. 145, No. 6 called Phaseolus. Authors (, Dall, 1908; Dell, 1956) have overlooked this descrip- tion by Monterosato (1875, Vol. 4) and con- sidered Phaseolus a nomen nudum (Dall, 1908; Bowden and Heppell, 1966) and dated the genus Phaseolus from Seguenza (1877), P. ovatus Seguenza being the type (Thiele, 1935). Jeffreys (1879) considered the name Phaseolus to be preoccupied in botanical nomenclature and substituted the name Silicula, citing S. fragilis Jeffreys as the
. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College. Zoology. 266 Bulletin Museum of Comparative Zoology, Vol. 145, No. 6 called Phaseolus. Authors (, Dall, 1908; Dell, 1956) have overlooked this descrip- tion by Monterosato (1875, Vol. 4) and con- sidered Phaseolus a nomen nudum (Dall, 1908; Bowden and Heppell, 1966) and dated the genus Phaseolus from Seguenza (1877), P. ovatus Seguenza being the type (Thiele, 1935). Jeffreys (1879) considered the name Phaseolus to be preoccupied in botanical nomenclature and substituted the name Silicula, citing S. fragilis Jeffreys as the type species. Jeffreys (1879) mentions the existence of Phaseolus ovatus in the same paper and said that this fossil possibly belongs to the same genus. Nevertheless, the use of Phaseolus in both zoological and botanical nomenclature is no reason for sub- stituting a new name. Later, Verrill and Bush (1897), having examined specimens. Figure 2. Internal views of left and right valves of Phaseolus ovatus Seguenza ( Not. Mus. No. 197406) from type locality—Fierazzi, Bougnone, Sicily. of both Silicula fragilis and Phaseolus ovatus, proposed that because of the con- siderable differences in shell character both names should be retained. This conclusion was disputed by Dall (1908), who was of the opinion that until all the characters of the two species were known Silicula could hardly rank higher than a subgenus, par- ticularly as he thought "it highly likely that species of intermediate character would be ; We have retraced these steps and have examined the holotype of Silicula fragilis from the Jeffreys collection in the National Museum (No. 197405) and also Phaseolus ovatus from the type locality in the same collection (No. 197406). V^e believe that Verrill and Bush (1897) were correct and that the two species are grossly different and belong to different genera. The specimen of Phoseolus ovatus cor- responds to the descriptions of Monterosato (1875) a
Size: 1262px × 1981px
Photo credit: © Book Worm / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookauthorharvarduniversity, bookcentury1900, booksubjectzoology
