Dear Kevin,

By coincidence I have just posted a message [#22944] concerning Lobiger from eastern Australia, and as I discuss there, it seems to me there are still unanswered questions concerning whether the Caribbean L. souverbii and the Indo-West Pacific L. viridis are the same or different species. if your animal was from the Caribbean I would have no hesitation in identifying it as L. souverbii as that name was based on Caribbean animals and is older than L. viridis.

However if they turn out to be separate species we have the added complication that East Pacific animal  could be either species, as a number of tropical American species occur on both sides of the Panama Isthmus, and a number of West Pacific species have been reported from the east Pacific coast of central America.

Best wishes,
Bill Rudman

Dear Les,
Thanks for this. As I said in an earlier message [#3117], it would be nice to have more information about the shape of living Lobiger souverbii to see if it has any distinctive differences from its Indo-West Pacific counterpart, Lobiger viridis. It would be interesting to see some more photos of it 'unfurling' the four parapodial lobes. Do they just have rounded 'bumps' along the edge or do they have enrolled secondary lobes, like their Indo-West Pacific counterpart?. Your photos show signs of enrolled secondary lobes.Perhaps next time you encounter this animal you could gice it a gentle prod to see if it will unroll its lobes as I illustrate from Lobiger viridis on the Fact Sheet.
Best wishes,
Bill Rudman

Thanks Colin,
I must say the distinction between the two species seems to be becoming a bit blurred. Perhaps this is one of those taxonomic problems which may need a look at the DNA. Certainly in your animal the parapodial lobes seem to have well developed secondary lobes
Best wishes
Bill Rudman

Thanks Ross,
Bill Rudman

Dear Ali
Thanks for another photo to complement the ones in last year's message. The 'parapodial' lobes certainly seem to match the Caribbean animals so I guess it is Lobiger souverbii rather than a very eastern population of the Indo-West Pacific species, Lobiger viridis.

I understand the warm water in the eastern Pacific coincides with drought conditions in Australia. So I hope the water soon cools down because we could do with some decent rain.
Cheers,
Bill Rudman

Thanks Nishina,
As I've said previously, I think the lack of secondary 'flaps' on the parapodia of the Caribbean animal may be distinguishing feature, but we need more imformation. The marks around the shell border are the edge of the mantle from inside the shell which extends out and recurves up over the shell. This is sensitive tissue and is often retracted so it's not always visible. You can see it in the lower left photo of the Fact Sheet for Lobiger viridis.
Best wishes,
Bill Rudman

Dear Anna,
Thanks for these photos of the Caribbean Lobiger. As you will see amongst the messages on the Lobiger viridis page there is considerable confusion as to whether there is one circumtropical species or a separate Caribbean species. Until that is resolved I guess it is better to err on the side of conservatism and call the Caribbean species Lobiger souverbii. As it is the older name any way, that is what they all should be called if there turns out to be one species. One distinction I wondered about was that the Indo-West Pacific animals had secondary rolled flaps on their parapoda while the Caribbean animals just had a crenulated edge. Certainly your photos don't show the rolled secondary flaps but I don't know whether the difference is a constant feature in either the Caribbean or the IWP.
Best wishes,
Bill Rudman.

Dear Ali,
Thanks for the photos. Looking for cryptic sacoglossans on their food plants can be a soul destroying exercise. I remember the first time I visited the Great Barrier Reef and was looking for sacoglossans living on Caulerpa racemosa. I really wanted to see living bivalved gastropods for the first time. After a week's searching and it seemed many tons of Caulerpa I admitted defeat. To build up the museum's collections we used to wash samples of algae in dilute formalin and preserve to washings for lab investigation. Months later a technician came up to me and said how rich in bivalve sacoglossans our samples were - and the three of us in the field had not seen one of them alive!
Best wishes,
Bill Rudman

Dear Rosemary,
I am not sure if your interest is in Lobiger souverbii or in the Lobiger that is found in the southwest Pacific.

Lobiger souverbii was described from the Caribbean and has been reported in the tropical and subtropical waters of the western Atlantic as far south as Brazil. Some authors have decided that the Atlantic species is the same as the Indo-West Pacific species Lobiger viridis, but that opinion is by no means unanimous. Certainly both species are similarly coloured and can have dark blue lines on the mantle but there have been differences reported in the anatomy which need checking. One other external difference I think needs checking is the shape of the four parapodial extensions. In animals from the Indo-West Pacific, which I am familiar with, the four primary lobes have secondary lobes along each side. These can be clearly seen in my photos on the Lobiger viridis page. I have never seen Caribbean animals alive, but from drawings and photos there don't seem to be secondary lobes, although there is some crenulation along each edge.

If anyone familiar with Caribbean animals could send some photos, or even a description, it would be very interesting.

If your interest Rosemary, is in the Pacific species then go to the Lobiger viridis page where I discuss some features of this animal.

Best wishes,
Bill Rudman.

Dear Cynthia,
Funny you should ask about L. souverbiei vs L. souverbii. I was just answering a question about this animal and was wondering about the two spellings myself. Fischer (1856) originally named the species Lobiger souverbii in honour of his friend Dr Souverbie. This spelling was used until Engel (1927) changed it to L. souverbiei. I have scanned through his paper but can't find why he changed the spelling. Since then some authors, the Marcuses in particular, have used Engel's spelling, while other authors have stuck with the original spelling. This is not a case of gender matching and is probably quite an unjustified emendation by Engel. Some later editions of the International Code, which of course appeared long after Fischer's day, did have recommendations about what endings should be applied to personal names, but they were never rules, just recommendations. If someone feels differently please let me know, but I can't find any justification for ignoring Fischer's original spelling. Unfortunately, as I have said before, we are biologists, not grammarians and linguists.

Your other two questions are much simpler: •2. Polybranchia viride is vernacular French which has no status in nomenclature. The latinised version Polybranchia viridis is the only valid name. French authors often used to give French names to species, often on the Plates, and the Latin name in the description.

•3. Olea haniseënsis vs. O. haniseensis. Firstly I think the spelling is hansineensis isn't it? The International Rules ban all diacritic marks, accents etc so ë becomes e etc.

If anyone knows of a good book on zoological nomenclature I would like to hear of it. There is the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature but like any code of laws you need to be a specialist or a specialist lawyer, to follow all the nuances, and understand how one clause affects another etc. And that is before you do your training in the grammar of two dead languages. The latest edition (4) of the Code is even less user friendly than earlier editions which use to have pages of recommendations, and tables explaining some grammatical points.

Hope I have answered the specific points you raised, but sorry I can't give much general information.
Best wishes,
Bill Rudman.