|Publication Type:||Journal Article|
|Year of Publication:||2008|
|Journal:||Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature|
|Type of Article:||Comment|
|Full Text|| |
I write in support of the proposed precedence of Chelodina rugosa Ogilby, 1890 over Chelodina oblonga Gray, 1841 for the reasons specified in Case 3351 and Thomson’s (2007) Comment (BZN 64: 127–128). Further, I support usage of the name Chelodina colliei Gray, 1856 for the species known under the misapplied name Chelodina oblonga Gray, 1841 for the past 40 years (see Case 3351). When it is considered that the same species was correctly namedChelodina colliei Gray, 1856 for 136 years, perpetuating the misapplication seems to be a bad choice, although Savage (2007, BZN 64: 68) suggested this by his application to the Commission to set aside all previous designations of type specimen for Chelodina oblonga Gray, 1841 and to designate as its neotype BMNH 19220.127.116.11, the lectotype of Chelodina colliei Gray, 1856. However, Savage (2007) overlooked the long correct usage of Chelodina colliei Gray, 1856 (see Thomson’s reply in BZN 64: 127–128).
Comment on the proposed precedence of Chelodina rugosa Ogilby, 1890 (currently Macrochelodina rugosa; Reptilia, Testudines) over Chelodina oblonga Gray, 1841 (Case 3351)