Double checking taxonomy of cerithium

[wateryworld]

Hello!  I need to confirm the names of a few ceriths, if you please!

Is the proper current name for stercusmuscarum now muscarum? (flyspeck cerith)

Is the proper current name for vertagus now rhinoclavis rhinoclavis?

Are aluco and cumingii both synomyms for pseudovertagus aluco?

Thanks!

[paul monfils]

Is the proper current name for stercusmuscarum now muscarum? (flyspeck cerith)

- No, they are distinct species.  Cerithium muscarum is from Florida and the Caribbean.  Cerithium stercusmuscarum is from West Central America.  They are quite different in appearance.

Is the proper current name for vertagus now rhinoclavis rhinoclavis?

- Not to my knowledge.  As far as I know it is still Rhinoclavis vertagus.

Are aluco and cumingii both synomyms for pseudovertagus aluco?

- Yes, cumingii is a synonym for aluco.

[wateryworld]

Interesting.  Different sources say different things, some that you are right, while others that I am right.   

The information I found claiming stercusmuscarum is now muscarum is from here --->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=473612&nbsp;">http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php? ... 3612&nbsp;</a><!-- m --> The shell in question has a black and white speckled colouration to it.


The second one, going from cerithium vergatus to rhinoclavis rhinoclavis, is also from that site and is here --->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=473045">http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php? ... &id=473045</a><!-- m -->
This shell is completely white.

Many of the shells I've looked up on that site match info on other sites, as I always cross-reference several sites at once.  Frankly, I don't know how people are supposed to know all of jack if every source available has as much potential to be completely wrong as the next source.  It's absolutely ridiculous.

[paul monfils]

Here is a comparison of muscarum and stercusmuscarum:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.conchology.be/?t=65&family=CERITHIIDAE&species=muscarum&locality=">http://www.conchology.be/?t=65&family=C ... &locality=</a><!-- m -->

aluco and vertagus can be seen here (among others):

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.conchology.be/?t=65&family=CERITHIIDAE&species=vertagus&locality=">http://www.conchology.be/?t=65&family=C ... &locality=</a><!-- m -->

I'm not suggesting that this site is the final authority on such matters, though I do find it to be quite reliable.

vertagus and aluco were both named by Linnaeus.  Species named by him are seldom if ever renamed.

[dave r]

Check the Authors and dates as well as the names. the valid stercusmuscarum is Valenciennes!

[wateryworld]

Thanks for the links, Paul.  According to them, the vertagus we have is an albino!

Dave, honest question - how exactly are people supposed to know that?  I've seen these attributed to more than one name, how would I know which is correct?  For example, "stercusmuscarum" on one source claims that it was "cerithium muscarum, Say, 1832" and then the synonym as being "cerithium stercusmuscarum, morch, 1876".  But another claims Valenciennes as the original, one year after Say, 1833.  Like I said earlier, this is just ridiculous and it's almost like taxonomy as a science has become an absolute farce of rampant outdated/misinformation.

[dave r]

Because the invalid one is Caribbean whereas the valid one is Panamic.

[wateryworld]

See, that's not really helpful to me.  One source says one location, another a second location, how is that any different/less confusing than them saying two different names?  How do I know which one is wrong without having to learn EVERY SINGLE THING about each species?  And animals are mobile for the most part, many can pick up and move to another location over time if they feel like it, and be in more than once place at once... ???

My stercusmuscarum is labelled as being from the gulf of California, while the vertagus is labelled as "West Pacific" (yeah, that's real specific)

[dave r]

I went through a whole shell collection made in the 1860's and mostly labeled 'South Sea Islands'!
You have to take note of the author and year when looking at latin names, sometimes a shell will have the same name by two different authors, then one is usually synonymised. This is what seems to have happened here. The one from the Caribbean being the synonym. It is actually quite straightforward.