Talk:Cornu aspersum

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cornu aspersum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109152749/http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/24702/fin_egyptian_citrus.pdf to http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/24702/fin_egyptian_citrus.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100715102514/http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/pestrava/helasp/tech/helaspe.shtml to http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/pestrava/helasp/tech/helaspe.shtml
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.pesticideinfo.org/List_AquireAll.jsp?Species=10633&Effect=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cornu aspersum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6752pi6M6?url=http://hypertextbook.com/facts/AngieYee.shtml to http://hypertextbook.com/facts/AngieYee.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Subspecies maxima

The following summarises some literature research on the status of the subspecies maxima. It was originally posted on the talk page of Chescargot, following some discussion of whether to change maximum to maxima when the genus changed to Cornu. Some of this probably counts as original research, which is why I present it here.

It is quite a mess!

The research group centred on Annie Guiller and Luc Madec have published many good-quality papers in very respectable journals on Cornu aspersum using genetic, shell and anatomical characters and including populations from Algeria amongst many others. In some of these papers they refer to Helix aspersa maxima (in later papers, Cornu aspersum maximum) as a distinct subspecies (e.g. Madec & Guiller 1993 https://doi.org/10.1093/mollus/59.4.455, Guiller et al. 1994 https://doi.org/10.1093/mollus/60.3.205 , Guiller et al. 2001 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.2001.01145.x , Guiller et al. 2012 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049674). In Madec & Guiller (1993) they give the taxonomic authority as Taylor (1883). Taylor's description is available here https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/31571517, and it refers to the variety maxima from Algeria; Taylor mentions various other large specimens from elsewhere although it is not absolutely clear that he includes them in this variety. The description is just "shell larger", with some measurements. Under Article 45.6.3 of the Code, for a publication before 1961, a variety name like this is considered a subspecific name.

The Guiller-Madec group are inconsistent in what they mean by maxima. Sometimes they seem to mean a local geographic form from Algeria (e.g. Madec & Guiller 1993), and sometimes they clearly mean the large variety found in snail farms (e.g. Guiller et al. 2012). Their genetic results imply that the snail-farm form is not the same as the forms so far known from Algeria (Guiller et al. 2001).

There are two problems with using Taylor's (1883) maxima name for the snail-farm form. One is that none of the specimens that Taylor mentioned in his description was from a snail farm. If the snail-farm form is genetically distinct, then maxima cannot be used to describe it. Taylor's name could be considered a synonym of the normal form or could be applied to a large Algerian variety, and it would be up to someone to write a paper that designates a lectotype to decide this.

However, it seems that this issue is mute because, when Taylor wrote, the name H. aspersa maxima had already been published by Parfitt in the "The Fauna of Devon. Part X. Conchology", Transactions of the Devonshire Association 1874 p.634. This is not online, but presumably it describes a large variety from Devon, which would make the name maxima a synonym of the usual form, H. aspersa aspersa. As one expects, if you look at MolluscaBase (http://www.molluscabase.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1380657 ) you find that Parfitt's maxima is indeed considered there a synonym of Helix aspersa (they do not recognise any subspecies). Significantly, that would mean that any subspecies named after 1874 as Helix aspersa maxima was not given a valid name. There is evidence that both the snail-farm form and one or more Algerian races may deserve separate subspecific status, and possibly there are some names already published that may be applied to them (I am not going to research that), but maxima is not such a name.

So what to do? One might copy Guiller and Madec's "bad behaviour" and use the subspecies name as though it were a valid scientific name and apply it both to the Algerian subspecies and the domesticated gros-gris. In that case the gender of maxima/um must match that of Helix or Cornu. Or you can say that this is not a valid name under the ICZN rules, and treat the name maxima just as a vernacular name. In that case there is no need to change the gender to match the genus. But it would be desirable to format it so that it did not look like a scientific name. I am not sure if there is an established way to do so (it is not covered by ICZN rules). The botanists write cultivars in inverted commas and not italicised. What do you think?

It is a bit different for C. aspersum aspersum. The nominotypical subspecies is considered to exist automatically as soon as someone describes another subspecies. It is the subspecies of the specimen described as C. aspersum. So aspersum is a valid subspecies name, and should agree with the gender of the genus. Jmchutchinson (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Synonomy list

@YorkshireExpat recently added a very lengthy synonomy list based on the one in MolluscaBase. One had to click to reveal it, but then it was so long that the formatting broke down on my screen, with the taxobox overlapping the main text. In any case it seemed to me too long to be useful to our readership. Those folks that might really need the fuller version will already know to go to MolluscaBase (or its mirror Worms). I have been bold and cut out entries that deal with subspecies of species already listed (they are just statements that the subspecies are not distinct) and also cut out entries that concern just the placement within a different subgenus (since nowadays subgenera are rarely used). It is still quite a long list and my own preference would be to cut further, but this is perhaps a reasonable compromise. It may be worth noting for those not familiar with published taxonomic articles, that it is quite usual to provide partial synonomy lists that include only the important synonyms; not producing an exhaustive list is not sloppiness but being helpful in concentrating on what is most relevant! Jmchutchinson (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough! YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)