Bull. zool. Norn., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 221 RHINOCLAMA DALL & SMITH, 1886 (MOLLUSCA, SEPTIBRANCHIA): PROPOSED VALIDATION OF THE CUSTOMARY USAGE. Z.N.(S.)2151 By David Heppell {Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh) and Rhona E. Morgan {University Marine Biological Station, Millport, Isle of Cumbrae, Scotland) Adams (1864, p. 207) in his list of the Japanese species ofNeaera [=Cuspidaria] established the new subgenus Rhinomya. He provided a short, but diagnostic, description and included two species, R. philipp-inensis Hinds and R. rugata Adams. The generic name was twice pre-occupied, first in Diptera and then in Birds. 2. Adams recorded the first species from two localities, Kino-O-Sima, 25 fathoms, and Uraga, 21 fathoms. Specimens of Adams's origi-nal material from Uraga are in the collections of the British Museum (Natural History), reg. no. 1878.1.28.416. Adams identified this species with Neaera philippinensis Hinds, 1843, but provided no further description. 3. A short description was given for R. rugata but the species has not subsequently been recognised from Japan. A specimen from Port Jackson, identified as this species, is in the British Museum (Natural History) but the species is not recorded in Iredale & McMichael's (1962) check-list of the marine MoUusca of New South Wales. 4. Smith (1885, p. 37) subdivided Neaera into 'sections'. His sec-tion G is equivalent to Rhinomya Adams and included only A^. rugata Adams and W. philippinensis A. Adams (nee Hinds)'. A^. philippinensis Hinds is the sole included species in Smith's section H. Smith did not provide descriptions of these species. He indicated that he had not seen specimens of N. rugata, from which we may conclude that Adams's types of that species were not in the British Museum at that time; their present whereabouts is unknown. Smith's separation of W. philip-pinensis Adams' from A^. philippinensis Hinds must have been based on the evidence of the specimens in the British Museum. He logically, though invalidly, associated Adams's name Rhinomya with the speci-mens Adams had misidentified with Hinds's species. 5. Dall & Smith in Dall (1886, p. 300) proposed Rhinoclama as a new section of the subgenus Leiomya. As they synonymised Rhino-clama with Rhinomya Adams non [Robineau-] Desvoidy nee Geoffroy, and with sections F and G of Smith, it must be considered that Rhino-clama was validly proposed as a replacement name for the preoccupied Rhinomya. Dall & Smith cite as type species W. philippinensis (A. Adams) E. A. Smith'. As shown in paragraph 4 above. Smith's use of this name to represent a taxon distinct from Hinds's species of the same name was based only on specimens, not on a description. As a nomen nudum it is unacceptable for a type species.
BioStor
