Talk:Radiodiscus iheringi

Binomial authority
Different sources provide different information on the binomial authority for this species. The IUCN lists Smith, 1881. Fonseca and Thome 1994 list (Ancey 1899), after moving Stephanoda iheringi into the genus (I think, my Spanish sucks). Given the commonality of the species name (due presumably to the adoration of Hermann von Ihering--I know of seven other mollusc species with the species name iheringi in other genera, as well as two rodents), I suspect these are two different species which had the same species name, which happened to be (re)classified into the same genus. However if anyone has better information, it may help clarify the issue.

I've requested Smith 1881 and Ancey 1899 from the library (at least the pubs I think they indicate), but I am not sure what it will find. WoRMS seems to not have either species. If these are two separate species, we should probably move this to Radiodiscus iheringi Smith, 1881, and make this a DAB page. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To update, I was able to pull Ancey 1899 (The Nautilus 13(1):17-19) and he does describe a new species, named S. iheringi from Brazil. I pulled the obvious guess for Smith 1881 (Proc. Zoo. Soc. London. 1881), but could not find a reference.  Unfortunately, I only had a few minutes to search the latter, so maybe I missed it (it isn't listed as R. iheringi, but I wasn't able to check every mollusc described to see if it might have been in another genus). It records the findings of the HMS Alert, which visited South America (although mostly further south than this species would be expected).  It is possible that the species is in another reference as well, but that seems like the obvious choice for new molluscs recorded in that year.  Next chance I get I will make copies and put them on Wikisource, since they are all now in the public domain.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing this. I have corrected the authority to Ancey. (There is wrong authority written in the 2011 IUCN Red List.) There was also wrong synonymization made by Fonseca and Thomé (they probably did not respected the Principle of Priority). --Snek01 (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)