15.06.2013 Views

Full article - Magnolia Press

Full article - Magnolia Press

Full article - Magnolia Press

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Orodoris Bergh, 1875, as “Nov. Gen.”; JMG 3(8) 1875b: 199 [67]. Type species by monotypy, Orodoris<br />

miamirana Bergh, 1875. Valdés & Gosliner (1999) synonymized under Ceratosoma Gray, 1850.<br />

Orodoris miamirana Bergh, 1875, as “n. sp.”; JMG 3(8) 1875b: 199–203 [67–71], 227 [95], 231 [99], pl. 7, figs. 3<br />

(multiple), pl. 10, figs. 9–20. Tahiti (Garrett, coll.). Recognized by Valdés & Gosliner (1999: 37) as Ceratosoma<br />

miamirana (Bergh, 1875).<br />

Phestilla Bergh, 1874, as “Nov. Gen.“; JMG 3(6) 1874c: 91, 114. Type species by original designation (I.C.Z.N.<br />

1999 Art. 68.2.1.), Phestilla melanobrachia Bergh, 1874.<br />

Phestilla melanobrachia Bergh, 1874, as “n. sp.”; JMG 3(6) 1874c: 91–95, 114, pl. 2, figs. 1–14. Philippines<br />

(Semper, coll.).<br />

Phyllidia loricata Bergh, 1873, as “n. sp.”; JMG 1(2) 1873a: 138 [66], 144–147 [72–75]. Tahiti (Garrett, coll.).<br />

Accepted as valid species Phyllidiopsis loricata (Bergh, 1873) by Brunckhorst (1993: 68).<br />

Phyllidia rosans Bergh, 1873, as “n. sp.”; JMG 1(2) 1873a: 138 [66], 139–144 [67–72], 165 [93], 166 [94], pl. 9,<br />

figs. 1–4; pl. 10, figs. 1–18. Tahiti (Garrett, coll.). Misspelled as P. “rosacea” in the Zoological Record (Martens<br />

1875: 153). Accepted as valid species Phyllidiopsis rosans (Bergh, 1873) by Brunckhorst (1993: 56).<br />

Plakobranchus chlorophacus Bergh, 1873, as “n. sp.”; JMG 1(2) 1873a: 148–151 [76–79], 165–167 [93–95], pl.<br />

9, figs. 5, 6; pl. 10, figs. 22–25; pl. 11, figs. 3–6. Huahine, Society Islands (Garrett, coll.).<br />

Vaginulus australis Heynemann, 1876, as “n. sp.”; JMG 5(12): 159. Queensland, Australia (Dämel, coll.). Now<br />

placed in genus Atopos, Rathouisiidae.<br />

Patronyms for collectors and other museum personnel<br />

Most of the Museum-Godeffroy contributors and other personnel were honored in patronyms by the describers of<br />

new taxa from the museum collections. Some 35 new animal and plant names were introduced for Godeffroy alone<br />

(Scheps, 2005: 59). Among molluscan taxa, we find names such as Diplommatina godeffroyana Mousson, 1870;<br />

Neritina godeffroyana Mousson, 1869; Pecten schmeltzii Kobelt in Küster & Kobelt, 1888; Navicella schmeltziana<br />

Mousson, 1870; Nanina schmeltziana Mousson, 1865; Melania lutosa Gould var. graeffei Mousson, 1869; Patula<br />

graeffei Mousson, 1869; Phasianella graeffei Dunker, 1871; Onchidium daemeli Semper, 1882; and Melania<br />

kubaryi Brot, 1886; all first appearing as nomina nuda in the Catalog series (see numbers 1116a, 1356a, 1767,<br />

3200, 3213, 3233, 6590, 6622, 14462, 14738). Other such nomina nuda intended to honor persons affliated with<br />

the museum were apparently never validated (e.g., numbers 1328, 1833a, 3315, 3334, 6308, 9370).<br />

Type specimens from the Godeffroy collection<br />

As detailed as the published Catalogs are, they do not reflect the full scale and diversity of the Godeffroy museum<br />

holdings. They merely are lists of the “duplicates” (one of the three parts of the Godeffroy collection), representing<br />

extra specimens of large original series or subsequently recollected material deemed unnecessary for the formed<br />

scientific and display collections of the museum. While they certainly can be useful in reconstructing potential type<br />

series of nominal species based on “Godeffroy” material and present the only published link to species numbers<br />

used in the organization of the collections, the specimens originally included in the two formal collections and any<br />

series potentially retained by the describing specialists also need to be considered. No comprehensive effort has<br />

been made to locate all type specimens, but individual searches for types based on specimens in the Museum<br />

Godeffroy have been reported. Ladiges (1958) described the successful search for type specimens of fishes in the<br />

Hamburg Museum collection, a quest aided by the existence of original labels and notation of collection numbers,<br />

but complicated by the fact that not all zoological collections had been transferred to the Museum, that type<br />

specimens were not specifically marked, and that the wet-preserved specimens had been lost due to deterioration in<br />

64 · Zootaxa 3511 © 2012 <strong>Magnolia</strong> <strong>Press</strong><br />

BIELER & PETIT

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!