Home | Lichtenstein Dynasty | Catalog Series | New Species | Systematic Index | References | Reproduction & Translation

(based on Geiger [2003])

Mya papyracea Lichtenstein, 1794.Original description
The clam species was described in the genus Mya along with Mya truncata Linnaeus, 1758 (Bivalvia: Myidae). It is likely that a species of Mya was described, though from the description alone it is impossible to identify it. No dimensions were given. The proboscis mentioned in the description may either refer to the extended gaping part of the clam shell, which can vary in length between species, or to the chitinous periostracum, which can be extended into a tube-shaped process in this group of clams. The species cannot be identified and is a nomen dubium.

Ostraea edulis var. bracteata Lichtenstein, 1794. Original description
The species is described between Ostraea edulis Linnaeus, 1758 (Ostraeidae), and Ostraea sinensis (= Spondylus sinensis [Schreibers, 1793]) (Spondylidae). Lichtenstein (1794) cited Rumpfius (1705: chap. 30, sp. 7; pl. 42, fig. C) for this species, who described "Chama litterata rotunda" (= Circe scripta Linnaeus, 1758) (Beekman, 1992), whose upper valve, is almost round in outline, convex, and marked with M and W shaped concentric zigzag lines. Chemnitz's (1786: vol. 9, pl. 116, fig. 995) cited figure of "Ostraea sinistrosae" from Portugal shows the lower half of a Crassostraea gigas (Thunberg, 1793), a common species in Europe (Poppe and Goto, 1993). It is unclear what type of bivalve could lead Lichtenstein to compare it to these two very different species. The dimensions given are 2 1/4 inches, 1 1/4 inches wide, and 1 inch deep. Ostraea edulis var. bracteata remains a nomen dubium.

Conus of Lichtenstein (1794). The section of cone snails contains 167 lots, many belonging to well-known species in the modern genus Conus sensu lato (Gastropoda: Caenogastropoda: Neogastropoda: Conidae) with approximately 700 described species. Four new species were described by Lichtenstein (1794).

Conus nobilis var.vincoomnes Lichtenstein, 1794. Original description
Conus nobilis
Linnaeus, 1758, is a well-known species from the Indian Ocean. The description of C. nobilis vincoomnes Lichtenstein, 1794, fits exactly C. nobilis victor Broderip, 1842 (e.g., Abbott and Dance, 1983: 247; Röckel et alii, 1995: pl. 36, fig. 8), characterized by the two areas with multiple bands consisting of tightly spaced dark brown markings. Both, Lichtenstein (1794) and Broderip (1842) compare their species to C. nobilis and C. ammiralis, further strengthening the identity of the two specific names, although no dimensions were given by Lichtenstein. Lichtenstein noted that this species is extremely rare with the three exclamation marks; C. nobilis victor is still today a rare shell from Indonesia. The name vincoomnes had never been used in the literature, hence, was designated by Geiger (2003) a nomen oblitum, and C. nobilis victor is a nomen protectum. The conditions to establish a nomen protectum (ICZN §23.9.2: name cited in at least 25 works by 10 authors during the immediate preceeding 50 years spanning at least 10 years) are met (Wagner and Abbott, 1964, 1977; 1978; van Regteren Jutting & van Regteren Altena, 1965; Marsh and Rippingale, 1968; Kaicher, 1976; Galinda, 1977; Walls, 1979; Eisenberg, 1981; Abbott and Dance, 1983; Baer, 1985; Baer & Caillez, 1985; Ferrer, 1985; Caillez, 1986, 1993; Anonymous, 1989; Nybakken, 1990; da Motta, 1991a&b; Dharma, 1992; Finet & Caillez, 1993; Higo and Goto, 1993; Lan, 1993; Prelle, 1994; Röckel et alii, 1995; Lauer, 1995; Goto and Poppe, 1996; Hutsell et alii, 1997). This list of citations is certainly not exhaustive, but suffices to meet the criteria set out by the ICZN code to establish a nomen protectum. Note the similarity in the species names (victor = the winner; vincoomnes = I win all), which may allow some speculation on the origin of Broderip's material. Broderip (1842) had two specimens at his disposition, one from I. H. Cuming, the other from the Reverend A. Harford, whereas Lichtenstein based his description on a single specimen. The two Broderip specimens had equal standing as syntypes. Finet and Caillez (1993) inadvertently designated a lectotype by labelling the specimen shown in their fig. 5 as "Holotype BMNH 1992085"; the wherabouts of the second specimen is not known. The name given by Broderip (1842) may also be seen in the context of naming a small, rare, and finely patterned species akin to C. cedonulli Linnaeus, 1758. The latter species epithet signifies "I cede to none" or, as Dance (1966) phrased it, "second to none". Accordingly, C. victor and C. vincoomnes could have been named independently in that tradition, though there is no indication to such an intent in either of the original descriptions.

Conus lemur Lichtenstein, 1794. Original description
Conus lar
Lichtenstein, 1794. Conus fritillaria Lichtenstein, 1794.Original description
These three Conus species are all nomina dubia. The descriptions lack much needed detail to allow positive identification, and no dimensions were given. Lot 182 describes "a so far unknown snail" under C. thomae Gmelin, 1791, but it is not named.

Voluta daedalea Lichtenstein, 1794. Original description
In the 18th century, the generic concept of Voluta included several major gastropod groups, notably Volutidae, Costellariidae, and Mitridae (Gastropoda: Caenogastropoda). The species is described between a section on Vexillum spp. (Gastropoda: Caenogastropoda: Costellariidae) and one on Mitra spp. (Gastropoda: Caenongastropoda: Mitridae). Accordingly, the species is most likely found in either of these two families and not in Volutidae (Gastropoda: Caenogastropoda), which is further supported by the description of strong color bands characteristic for Costellariidae and Mitridae, but rather uncommon in Volutidae. The species seems to be a Vexillum. In this genus many species show the described sequence of a broad orange/brown band, followed by a narrow black one, then by a white one at the level of the shoulder, and additional red/orange/brown bands: e.g., Vexilum plicarium (Linnaeus, 1758). The description of the shell as "folded" may refer to the axial folds on many species of Vexillum. The dimensions of 2 1/2 inches long and 1/2 inch wide also agree with such a general identificaton, yet the species cannot be determined. Voluta daedalea remains, however, a nomen dubium.

Murex spp. of Lichtenstein (1794). In the eighteenth century, the generic concept of Murex included a mixture of modern Gastropoda: Caenogastropoda families: Buccinidae, Cymatiidae, Fasciolariidae, Melongenidae, Muricidae, Ranellidae, and Turridae.

Murex canistrum Lichtenstein, 1794. Original description
The purple aperture, the five spines and the yellow outer coloration of the shell suggest a member of the genus Drupa (Muricidae). However, the overall shell shape of Drupa is not elongated ("tail like"), but rather globular. No dimensions were provided. Accordingly, this identification at the generic level is highly tentative, and the epithet is a nomen dubium.

Murex lycopersicon Lichtenstein, 1794. Original description
Chemnitz's (1788) figure cited by Lichtenstein (1794) shows a "Murex sacellum" from the coast of Nicobar 1 inch 9 lines (approximately 5 cm) tall, hence, somewhat larger than Lichtenstein's 1 1/4 inches. Thais sacellum (Gmelin, 1791) is a junior synonym of T. rugosa (Born, 1778) found in southeast Asia. From the distinction of a wider siphonal canal, it is difficult to assess the species' identity. Thaids are known to be very variable in outline and proportions, and Chemnitz's (1788) figure shows quite certainly a juvenile specimen of the species, because the apertural lip is not thickened. Murex lycopersicon remains a nomen dubium.

Murex australasiae Lichtenstein, 1794. Murex pacificus Lichtenstein, 1794. Original description
These two species, 2 inches and 1 3/4 inches in size, respectively, cannot be identified and become nomina dubia. The former was said to come from the "South Seas". Murex australasiae is cited by Röding (1798: 113) in lot 1462 under his Buccinium lamellosum: Das blättrige braune Kinkhorn [the foliaceous brown kinkhorn] from the south sea. The species is also indicated as being rare with a single exclamation point, in the same style that Lichtenstein used in his sales catalogues.

Trochus tahitiensis Lichtenstein, 1794. Original description
In the eighteenth century, the generic concept of Trochus included members of the Gastropoda: Vetigastropoda families Trochidae and Turbinidae, as well as of the Gastropoda: Heterobranchia: Architectoniidae. The indication of mother-of-pearl in Lichtenstein's description points towards the Trochidae or Turbinidae; these two families are particularly distinguished by the corneous (Trochidae) or calcareous (Turbinidae) operculum of which there is no mention in Lichtenstein's description. Trochus tahitiensis could be Trochus maculatus Linnaeus, 1758. This species is widespread in the Indo-Pacific and central Pacific, is extremely variable in color and has distinct teeth in the aperture. It grows to 5 cm, hence, Lichtenstein's specimen from Otaheite at a size of 31 mm could be a juvenile. This identification remains tentative and I prefer to treat Trochus tahitiensis as a nomen dubium. Röding (1798: 84, lot 1093) listed a "C. [Cidaris] taitensis. Der otaheitische Turban" [The turban shell from Otaheite]. This lot was most likely considered conspecific with Lichtenstein's (1794) Trochus tahitiensis. Turbo taiticus in Röding (1798: 86, lot 1116), however, does not seem to correspond with Lichtenstein's species, as it is said to come from New Zealand. Cidaris Röding, 1798, with type species C. pagodus Röding, 1798, is identified as Turbo Linnaeus, 1758, and is a junior homonym of Cidaris Leske, 1778 (Echinidermata: Echinoidea) (Winckworth, 1945). Although Cidaris Röding is synonymous with Turbo, it does not necessarily mean that C. taitensis is a Turbo. For one, Röding (1798) used Turbo as a distinct genus, in which he even included a Turbo taiticus Röding (1798: 86, lot 1116). Cidaris taitensis does not seem to correspond with Lichtenstein's species, as it is said to come from New Zealand. It is likely that Röding included in the concept of his Cidaris large and heavy, but not rounded Trochoidea. Trochus falls well under this description, but T. maculatus does not occur on New Zealand, hence, C. taitensis is most likely not conspecific with T. tahitiensis. Röding (1798: 102, lot 1313) further listed a Lunatia taitensis, the silvermouth from Otaheite. Lunatia is a genus in the Naticidae, which was included by Lichtenstein (1794) in the genus Nerita, with the exception of modern species in Sinum, that were classified under Patella. Naticidae do not have plications in on the columella, and the German name silver mouth may have been given due to the glossy white aperture common in Naticidae. Therefore, I do not think that Röding's (1798) L. taitensis may in fact be Lichtenstein's (1794) T. tahitiensis.

Helix of Lichtenstein (1794). In the eighteenth century, the generic concept of Helix contained all types of land snails of which there are approximately 30,000 currently described species.

Helix porphyrostoma Lichtenstein, 1794. Original description
An umbilicate shell, uniformily chestnut colored with a violet aperture of 1 1/4 inches height with a spire that is depressed by 1/4 inch is described from Ambon. The species cannot be identified (nomen dubium).

Helix australasiae Lichtenstein, 1794. Original description
An umbilicate shell which is dark brown at the tip, horn colored in the middle, and violet at the base of 1 1/2 inches height is described from Tahiti and other nearby islands of the Pacific Ocean. The species cannot be identified (nomen dubium).

Helix carmelita Lichtenstein, 1794. Original description
A thick-shelled species from New Zealand of five whorls with oblique banding pattern remains unidentifiable (nomen dubium).

Haliotis clathrata Lichtenstein, 1794 (non Reeve, 1846). Original description
is a genus of marine snails whose usage has remained virtually unchanged since the introduction by Linnaeus (Gastropoda: Vetigastropoda: Haliotidae). Only some imperforate "Haliotis" do not belong in this genus and have been transferred to Trochoidean genera. Lichtenstein's species has been identified as H. elegans Philippi, 1844 (Gastropoda: Vetigastropoda: Haliotidae) by Geiger (1999). Haliotis clathrata Lichtenstein, 1794, (non Reeve, 1846) has been suppressed under ICZN Opinion 1950 (ICZN, 2000) following Case 3036 (Geiger and Stewart, 1998).

Home | Lichtenstein Dynasty | Catalog Series | New Species | Systematic Index | References | Reproduction & Translation