Raheem-2014-Western Ghats Land Snails-1-294

12
TROPICAL NATURAL HISTORY, SUPPLEMENT 4, NOVEMBER 2014
accompanied by labels giving the species
name in Pfeiffer’s distinctive handwriting.
Where such labels are absent, caution is
required. On balance, however, where
Pfeiffer’s description was based on Cuming
material, we have accepted the type status of
a lot on the basis of three criteria, all of
which have to be met. The criteria are: first,
the material has to be clearly labelled as
Cuming material; second, the material has to
be labelled with the locality given in Pfeiffer’s
description; and third, the material has
to correspond with the original description.
Unless otherwise stated, the same approach
has been followed when evaluating the type
status of Cuming material described by other
authors such as Dohrn, Hanley and Theobald.
Some specimens from Benson in the
NHM are associated with original documentation,
and thus their type status is well
supported. A number of the NHM’s Benson
specimens were also acquired from the
collection of J.S. Hawkins, a contemporary
of Benson; Benson is known to have sent
specimens and reprints of his papers to
Hawkins. However, for most of Benson’s
collection that is housed in the UMZC, the
level of evidence for recognising type series
is limited because most of the original labels
were removed before the collection was
moved to Cambridge (Naggs, 1997) . The
same is also true of Benson material of
Glessula that was transferred to the NHM
from the UMZC. Following the publication
of new species, Benson often obtained
additional material, and this is most obvious
where a lot contains more specimens than are
referred to in his original description. Thus,
all of the Benson specimens lacking original
labels at the UMZC and the NHM might be
considered to be of questionable type status.
However, where we can find no conflicting
evidence, we have accepted that lots do, most
probably, represent at least part of the type
series from which lectotypes can be designated,
and this we have done. Where there is
doubt, but the material remains the best
available basis for recognising species, we
have designated neotypes. All lectotype and
neotype designations should be attributed to
Raheem and Naggs.
Apart from the NHM and UMZC, the list
illustrates type material from the following
institutions: Museum für Naturkunde, Humboldt-Universität
zu Berlin (ZMB); Muséum
d’Histoire Naturelle de la Ville de Genève,
Geneva (MHNG); Muséum Natio nal d’Histoire
Naturelle, Paris (MNHN); National
Museum of Wales, Cardiff (NMW); Senc -
kenberg Forschungsinstitut und Naturmuseum,
Frankfurt (SMF); Senckenberg Naturhistorische
Sammlungen Dresden (SNSD);
Zoological Museum, Natural History Museum
of Denmark, University of Copenhagen
(ZMUC); and the Zoological Survey of India,
Calcutta (ZSI).
The NHM, located in South Kensington
in Central London, was formerly known as
the British Museum (Natural History) and
became fully independent from the British
Museum in 1963. The formal change of
name to the Natural History Museum,
London, occurred in 1992, and this has led
to some confusion in India and elsewhere
because classic 20 th century publications
such as the FBI refer to collections in the
British Museum or more often simply BM.
Treatment of Data from Specimen Labels,
Registers and Historical Literature
As a general rule, apart from taxon names,
all documentation on the labels accompanying
material illustrated in the list has been
reproduced. In addition, for material from
the NHM collections, we have included all
data given under the relevant registration
number in the NHM’s Mollusca registers –
the data transcribed from the registers are