Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 213 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE FOR MYTILUS (NOW ANODONTA) ANATINUS LINNAEUS, 1758. Z.N.(S.) 1643 (see volume 21, pages 432^34) By Per Brinck {Zoological Institute, University, Lund, Sweden) In his application Dr. Lemche has presented the case well but I feel doubtful as regards his final proposals. A few additional data on the name Mytilus anatinus may be useful. Mytilus anatinus was briefly diagnosed by Linnaeus (Syst. Nat. I, No. 219 : 706; 1758) as is given by Brander (Ark. f. Zool., ser. 2, 9 ; 6 : 177) in his discussion of the name of the species. But there are two more detailed descriptions, viz. in the Fauna Suecica (ed. 1, 1746, No. 1332 : 380; ed. 2, 1761, No. 2158 : 522) and a few general notes in his " Lectures " written 1748-1752 (ed. E. Lonnberg : Linnes forelasningar ofver djurriket, Stockholm 1913). These data demonstrate that Linnaeus regarded his M. anatinus as covering the widely distributed Swedish " Sjo-Mussla " (Lake Mussel), " common in lakes and rivers where it is found in water so deep that it does not freeze. The shell is used to store the colour in the paint-boxes which are for sale in the grocers' shops ". (Linnes forelasningar, p. 354.) Extant Linnaean material in the Linnaean Society (London) and the Zoological Museum of Upsala belongs to Pseudanodonta complanata (Ziegl.) Rossm., 1835 (cf. Brander, I.e.). The species which is common and widespread in Sweden (like in the rest of Fennos-candia) is Anodonta anatina s. auct. anglic, while Pseudanodonta complanata (Ziegl.) Rossm. is rarely found and certainly not the species primarily meant by the trivial name sjoinussla. Present facts say, as does our knowledge of Linnaeus's idea of the species concept, that Mytilus anatinus L. was a composite species, meant to cover the big mussels abundantly occurring in Swedish lakes (and rivers). Therefore, we are certainly not forced to accept any Linnaean specimen in London and Upsala as being the " type ", and by the way, I know of no designation of such a specimen as a lectotype, though according to Lemche (I.e.) the specimen in London is " generally regarded as the type ". From a practical point of view the best would undoubtedly be to drop anatina and preserve Nilsson's name piscinalis for the species, at the same time as the Pseudanodonta species under discussion is dealt with as P. complanata (Ziegl.) Rossm. The question is whether it is such a very serious procedure to suppress and extract a name already on the Official List (Lemche, I.e.), a name which happened to come there without a close examination of the case. I would prefer a solution according to this alternative. Dr. Lemche, however, has accepted alternative (c) of Dr. Hubendick and Dr. Walden {Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 435), viz. selecting a neotype of Mytilus anatinus inconsistent with the " original " Linnaean material. Dr. Lemche proceeds by saying that he has " not been able to get any help from Swedish malacologists in choosing a neotype among material in a Swedish museum and from Sweden ". So he chooses a shell from the moat around Copenhagen, more closely the part retained as a small lake in the botanical garden. I wonder if Dr. Lemche has tried to come in contact with the people at the Lund Zoological Museum which has rich collections of Swedish Anodonta, including the typical material of Sven Nilsson, and has a specialist working on the ecological distribution and differentiation of these molluscs. As is evident from, e.g. Brander's paper (Afk. f. Zool. 9, 6 : 175 sqq) there is a very great variation among these molluscs, dependent on the habitat. Therefore, it is important that a neotype is not chosen from a habitat like a moat, being in a way an artefact which certainly stamps any population of these mussels typologically. We would all be anxious not to fix the name anatina to such a population. It we want to Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 4. November 1965.
BioStor
