(based on Geiger
Mya papyracea Lichtenstein, 1794.Original
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,
Conus lar Lichtenstein, 1794. Conus fritillaria Lichtenstein,
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
Murex canistrum Lichtenstein, 1794. Original
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
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
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
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.
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
Helix porphyrostoma Lichtenstein, 1794.
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
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
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
Haliotis 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,