Content uploaded by Luiz Simone
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Luiz Simone on Sep 16, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Volume: 52 THE FESTIVUS ISSUE 2
I
S
S
N
0
7
3
8
-
9
3
8
8
1
8
4
Comments on “Vandalism” in Malacology
Dr. Nguyen Ngoc Thach,
1
Dr. Luiz Ricardo L. Simone,
2
Jeff Parsons BAppSc, BSc (Hons),
3
John Abbas,
4
and Frank Huber
5
1
Former Research Associate, Oceanographic Institute,
Nha Trang, Vietnam.thachshells267@yahoo.com
2
Director, Museum of Zoology, University of São Paulo, Brazil. lrsimone@usp.br
3
47 Elizabeth Street, Aitkenvale, Queensland, Australia 4814. jeffonese@yahoo.com.au
4
Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii - Jalan Demaga Baru, Muara Angke,
Jakarta Utara Pos 14450, Jakarta, Indonesia. john123abba@yahoo.com
5
Stadplatz 1, A-4690 Schwanenstadt, Austria.
I
N
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Malacology, as any science, progresses thanks
to the comments and constructive criticism of
other scientists. Comments help us to see other
people’s points of view, improve the scientific
papers, and widen their importance.
Constructive criticism and well thought out
comments by Páll-Gergely expressed in his
reccent article (2020), as well as by any other
malacologist or collector, are always welcome,
where such criticism is communicated in a
professional manner with the exclusive
intention of improving the field of science. We
understand that any arguments and criticism
should provide an adequate scientific basis,
accompanied by convincing proofs and
avoiding personal attacks, insults, and the use of
offensive words like “vandalism”. These
provide the basic courtesies and support the
foundation of science, and in malacology, as
there are many more things in nature waiting to
be discovered or better defined, i.e., reviewed.
Under this philosophy, we analyze and respond
to the recent criticism and arguments of Páll-
Gergely et al. (2020), in order to compare our
viewpoints, and to show that we are strongly
convinced of the validity of several previously
described taxa by thoroughly reviewing the
morphological characters that led us to those
conclusions.
There can be doubts on the validity of any
species hypothesis, and it is not rare to later
conclude that some previously described species
are only a variation that can be inferred from
future examination of multiple specimens of a
wide-ranging population. However, it is
scientifically valid to maintain any morpho-
species as an official taxon until a future more
thorough study can be performed. The
description of species is and has been widely
subjective, and irrefutable proof, even from a
molecular approach, does not exist.
ABBREVIATIONS
NHMUK Natural History Museum,
London, England, UK
RMNH Naturalis Center of Biodiversity,
Leiden, The Netherlands
ZMMU Zoological Museum of Moscow
University, Russia
DISCUSSION
Following we present some of our main
arguments and supporting evidence why we are
strongly convinced of the actual validity of
some previously described taxa which have
been challenged by Páll-Gergely et al. (2020),
focusing primarily on Amphidromus species:
Volume: 52 THE FESTIVUS ISSUE 2
I
S
S
N
0
7
3
8
-
9
3
8
8
1
8
5
1
.
A
m
p
h
i
d
r
o
m
u
s
c
r
u
e
n
t
a
t
u
s
,
A
.
d
a
o
a
e
,
A
.
d
a
o
a
e
robertabbasi do not have a reddish-brown
aperture as argued (Páll-Gergely et al., 2020, at
p. 52). In fact, these species have a white
aperture.
2. Hempilecta pluto has been interpreted as
being highly variable in terms of basic shell
morphology (Páll-Gergely et al., 2020), an
affirmative statement attributed to Inkhavilay et
al. (2019), however, that paper does not support
Páll-Gergely et al.’s statements of fact on any
point.
3. Amphidromus naggsi (Figure 6, left) has been
interpreted as being smoother than A. ingens
(see Figure 6, right) (Páll-Gergely et al., 2020,
at p. 53), however the images clearly show A.
naggsi has a more deformed shape, i.e. is less
smooth than A. ingens.
4. There is an unjustified and unsupported
accusation that the paper’s the senior author has
used other people’s photos, e.g., Bagni Liggia
and Wikipedia (Páll-Gergely et al., 2020, at p.
36). However, no specific figure(s) are
referenced by Páll-Gergely as an example, and
despite this unsupported allegation we see no
problem in using other people’s photos with
their permission.
5. Many of the critical statements and
conclusions of Páll-Gergely et al. (2020) were
internally inconsistent, doubtful or unsupported,
for example:
A. Amphidromus thanhhoaensis “is valid”
(Páll-Gergely et al. (2020), at pg. 67) and
only “apparently valid” (pg. 55);
B. Cyclotus huberi is “a valid species” on
MolluscaBase since September 22, 2018
but “this species could be valid” (Páll-
Gergely et al. (2020), at pg. 38);
C
.
C
y
a
t
h
o
p
o
m
a
h
u
b
e
r
i
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
a
c
c
e
p
t
e
d
as valid on MolluscaBase since September
21, 2018, but it is “apparently invalid”
(Páll-Gergely et al. (2020), at pg. 73, as
“no comments”).
6. Páll-Gergely did not contact the senior author
before renaming taxa. The act of renaming
Amphidromus severnsi anhi and Satsuma huberi
breached the rules set forth in Appendix No. 3
of Code of Ethics in the 1999 ICZN, by not
contacting the author beforehand to discuss the
proposed changes.
7. There is a bold and unsupported assertion by
Páll-Gergely et al. (2020, in the article’s
abstract) that all newly described species were
“described in non-peer-reviewed journals.” (It
should be noted that the ICZN does not require
peer review for a taxa to be valid.) However, the
disputed taxa were published in the following
journals which are peer-reviewed: Basteria, of
the Netherlands (Amphidromus naggsi, Acesta
kronenbergi); Conchylia, of Germany
(Amphidromus christabaerae, A. huynhanhi, A.
keppensdhondtorum, A. renkeri); Gloria Maris,
magazine of Belgium (Amphidromus huberi, A.
setzeri, Camaena onae, Cyclophorus
stevenabbasorum); Malacologia Mostra
Mondiale, of Italy (Vasticardium kuboderai);
Miscellana Malacologica, of The Netherlands
(Solen moolenbeeki, Anadara dekkeri);
Novapex, of Belgium (Pterocyclos huberi,
Lanceolaria bogani); The Festivus, of USA
(Bertia setzeri, Camaena abbasi, C. chuongi,
Vasticardium berschaueri, Vepricardium
eichhorsti), Visaya (Amphidromus ngai, A.
sowyani, Solen poppei); Xenophora Taxonomy,
of France (Fulgoraria alforum, F. bailorum, F.
callomoni), etc.This assertion by Páll-Gergely
et al. is not only incorrect but it is potentially
defamatory to both the senior author and each of
these highly esteemed and peer reviewed
journals.
Volume: 52 THE FESTIVUS ISSUE 2
I
S
S
N
0
7
3
8
-
9
3
8
8
1
8
6
8
.
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
w
e
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
b
y
Páll-Gergely et al. 2020, to be simply color
variants, however they furthermore differ in
many other characters such as shell shape,
columella shape, outer lip shape, etc. Set forth
below are some typical examples, although
other examples will be presented in a future
paper.
•Amphidromus baerorum Thach, 2018
(Figure 1a) is significantly different from A.
smithii Fulton, 1896 (Figure 1b) based on the
following characters: (1) broader, twisted and
not black columella; (2) wider aperture; (3)
more inflated body whorl; (4) presence of
orange spiral bands along sutures; (5) white (not
black) outer lip; (6) presence of a white spiral
band at mid-body whorl; and (7) green (not
yellow) body whorl. There are seven character
differences, but Pall-Gergely et al. (2020)
apparently either could not detect them, or
ignored them, and consider the former as a color
variant of the latter. The appearance of
columella is a major difference in shell
sculpture, it is not a color variant, not a minor
shell character, and is too important a character
not to be used to distinguish or separate species.
It is common knowledge even among collectors
and dealers that they are not conspecific.
•Amphidromus davidmonsecoruri Thach,
2018 (Figure 2a) is significantly different from
A. smithii Fulton, 1896 (Figure 2b) based on the
six following characters: (1) white (not black)
and not straight columella; (2) much wider
aperture; (3) more inflated body whorl; (4) more
constricted sutures; (5) red early whorls; and (6)
purplish (not black) outer lip. The difference of
the columella is a major difference in shell
sculpture, it is not a color variant, and not a
minor shell character. One should not engage in
sophistry to consider this species as a synonym
without proof of similarity. Any character in
new species that Páll-Gergely described was
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
b
y
h
i
m
t
o
b
e
a
m
a
j
o
r
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
,
while characters used in new species described
by other authors were considered by him to be
minor characters. This argument is intellectually
inconsistent and reflects poorly on Pall-Gergely
et al. as it shows that they were not impartial in
their analysis and comments.
•Amphidromus fraussenae Thach Huber,
2017 (Figure 3a) significantly differs from A.
ventrosulus Möllendorff, 1900 (Figure 3b)
based on seven important characters: (1)
columella broader, purple red (not pink) and
directed leftward (not rightward); (2) outer lip
thicker, more solid and extending far at
posterior end before touching the remaining
shell; (3) spire narrower, more slender and
straight-sided; (4) lacking green subsutural
bands; (5) aperture more elongate; (6) parietal
wall wider, not yellow and more calloused; and
(7) lacking axial stripes at body whorl. It is
clearly visible that these two shells are not
identical. We do not agree that the former is a
synonym of the latter. These seven main
differences are sufficient to separate them into
two different species. Considering A. fraussenae
as synonym is inappropriate. As Páll-Gergely et
al. (2020) considered both A. fraussenae and A.
cargilei as synonyms of A. ventrosulus, the
shells must look alike.However, the individual
shells shown in Figures 3a and 4a do not show
any significant similarity between them.
•Amphidromus cargilei Thach Huber, 2018
(Figure 4a) significantly differs mainly from A.
ventrosulus Möllendorff, 1900 (Figure 4b)
based on many important characters: (1)
columella white (not pink), flared inward and
directed leftward (not rightward); (2) outer lip
thinner and flared outward; (3) sutures more
constricted; (4) sutural bands not green; (5)
aperture more elongate; (6) parietal wall well
defined and black (not yellow); (7) lacking axial
stripes at body whorl; and (8) body whorl more
Volume: 52 THE FESTIVUS ISSUE 2
I
S
S
N
0
7
3
8
-
9
3
8
8
1
8
7
i
n
f
l
a
t
e
d
.
I
t
i
s
c
l
e
a
r
l
y
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
s
e
t
w
o
s
h
e
l
l
s
are not identical. We do not agree that the
former is a synonym of the latter. These eight
main differences are sufficient to separate them
into two different species. While Pall-Gergely et
al. maintain that A. cargilei is a synonym of A.
ventrosulus, they have not shown any proof of
similarity on photos of these two shells.
•Amphidromus daoae Thach, 2016 (Figure 5a)
is significantly different from Amphidromus
cruentatus Morlet, 1875 (Figure 5b) based on
the following characters: (1) inflated (not flat),
narrower, black (not brown) columella; (2)
more inflated body whorl; (3) more pointed and
straight-sided spire; (4) not constricted sutures,
(5) larger and greenish (not white) aperture; (6)
black (not brown) outer lip with white (not
black) inner margin; and (7) presence of axial
stripes, especially at spire whorls. There are
seven significant character differences between
the two species however Páll-Gergely et al.
(2010) engaged in sophistry to consider the
former as a synonym of the latter. The
conclusions by Páll-Gergely et al. are
problematic as they are inconsistent with the
available evidence, such as stating that the
aperture of A. cruentatus is red-brown, and
ignoring the difference in the columella which
represents a major difference in shell character.
•Amphidromus naggsi Thach Huber, 2014
(Figure 6a) is significantly different from A.
ingens Möllendorff, 1900 (Figure 6b) based on
the following characters: (1) rugose (not smooth)
outer surface; (2) more numerous spiral grooves
at body whorl (2-3 grooves versus one groove);
(3) stronger sculpture; (4) wider aperture; and (5)
posterior canal not pointed. These five character
differences support the assertion that they are
two different species. However, Páll-Gergely et
al. engaged in sophisistry to consider A. naggsi
a synonym of A. ingens.
•
A
m
p
h
i
d
r
o
m
u
s
p
e
t
u
c
h
i
T
h
a
c
h
,
2
0
1
8
(
F
i
g
u
r
e
7
)
is significantly different from A. reflexilabris
Schepman, 1892 (Figure 8) based on the
following characters: (1) outer lip turned
backward at anterior end, not rolled into a
rounded tube at dorsal side and not pink; (2)
angulate (not rounded) aperture; (3) taller spire;
(4) slender shape; (5) presence of many spiral
bands; (6) not curved and white (not pink)
columella; and (7) adherent periostracum with
brown stripes (not easily worn periostracum
with green stripes). There are seven major
character differences. However, Páll-Gergely et
al. (2020) said there is only a difference of color
(a mere color variant). The differences in
characters (1) outer lip, (2) aperture, (4) shell
shape, and (6) columella, are major differences
in shell character, not mere variation of color. It
is even common knowledge among collectors
and dealers that these are two different species.
•Amphidromus calvinabbasi Thach, 2017
(Figure 9) is significantly different from
Amphidromus reflexilabris Schepman, 1892
(Figure 8) based on the following characters: (1)
not pink outer lip that is not rolled into a
rounded tube at dorsal side; (2) sharply angulate
(not rounded) aperture; (3) tall spire; (4) slender
shape; (5) presence of many spiral bands; and (6)
straight (not curved) and white (not pink)
columella. There are six above-mentioned
significant character differences. However, Pall-
Gergely et al. (2020) engaged in sophistry to
consider the former as a color variant of the
latter. The differences in characters (1) of outer
lip, (2) of aperture, and (6) of the columella are
major character differences in shell sculpture,
not a mere color variant.
•Amphidromus juniorabbasi Thach, 2018
(Figure 10) is significantly different from
Amphidromus reflexilabris Schepman, 1892
(Figure 8) based on the following characters: (1)
white outer lip that is not pink and not rolled
Volume: 52 THE FESTIVUS ISSUE 2
I
S
S
N
0
7
3
8
-
9
3
8
8
1
8
8
i
n
t
o
a
r
o
u
n
d
e
d
t
u
b
e
a
t
d
o
r
s
a
l
s
i
d
e
;
(
2
)
a
n
g
u
l
a
t
e
(less rounded) aperture; (3) tall spire; (4)
slender shape; (5) presence of axial lines at
body whorl; and (6) straight (not curved) and
white (not pink) columella. There are six above-
mentioned character differences, however Páll-
Gergely et al. (2020) considered the former as
color variant of the latter. The differences in
characters (1) of outer lip, (2) of aperture, and
(6) of columella are major character differences
in shell sculpture, not a mere color variant.
•Amphidromus richgoldbergi Thach Huber,
2017 (Figure 11) is significantly different from
A. “givenchyi of Sutcharit Panha, 2006”
(Figure 12) based on many characters such as:
(1) much larger adult size; (2) much higher than
wide (not stout shape); (3) pointed and more
straight-sided spire; (4) not constricted sutures;
(5) red (not brownish spot) on apex; (6) taller
body whorl; (7) broader and longer columella;
(8) presence of green varix; (9) more elongate
aperture; (10) parietal wall with red blotch, not
white like their A. “givenchyi of Sutcharit
Panha, 2006” and well defined and bordered by
green wavy line; (11) outer lip solid at dorsal
side while that of their A. “givenchyi” is hollow
and well visible in Figure 12; (12) posterior
margin of outer lip not strongly convex and not
steeply ascending; (13) straight (not curved) and
longer columella; (14) deep yellow-orange at
outer surface (not almost greenish like their A.
“givenchyi”); and (15) umbilicus is closed in A.
richgoldbergi and open in their A. “givenchyi”.
These numerous differences support the species
hypothesis that A. richgoldbergi is a separate
species as it is significantly different from A.
“givenchyi”. It is even common knowledge
among collectors and dealers that they are two
different species.
Many of the characters noted in the paragraphs
above demonstrate why these species were
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
n
e
w
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
w
h
e
n
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
l
y
described. It is understandable that some of
these characters may have eluded or been
undetected by Páll-Gergely et al., as they are
not experts in Amphidromus identification.
However, personal attacks are unacceptable in
science, and it was also inappropriate for Páll-
Gergely et al. to ignore or intentionally
overlook unique identifying shell characters in
order to arrive at their desired conclusions, or
due to what appears to be professional jealousy.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author sincerely thanks the London
National Museum of Natural History, the
Leiden Naturalis Center of Biodiversity, the
Zoological Museum of Moscow University and
Andy Tan for the use of their photos of various
Amphidromus species. Thanks are also due to
the anonymous reviewers.
REFERENCES
Inkhavilay K., Sutcharit C., Bantaowong U.,
Chanabun R., Siriwut W., Srisonchai R.,
Pholyotha A., Jirapatrasilp, P. Panha, S.
2019. Annotated checklist of the terrestrial
molluscs from Laos (Mollusca, Gastropoda).
ZooKeys 834:1-166.
https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.834.28800
Páll-Gergely, B, A. Hunyadi K. Auffenberg.
2020. Taxonomic vandalism in Malacology:
Comments on Molluscan taxa recently described
by N.N. Thach and Colleagues (2014-2019). Folia
Malacologica, Poland, 28(1):35-76.
Thach, N.N. 2016. Vietnamese New Mollusks.
48HrBooks Co., USA, 205 pp. (including 99 color
plates).
Thach, N.N. 2017. New Shells of Southeast Asia
48HrBooks Co., USA, 128 pp. (including 68 color
plates).
Thach, N.N. 2018. New Shells of South Asia.
48HrBooks Co., USA, 173 pp. (including 87 color
p
l
a
t
e
s
)
.
Volume: 52 THE FESTIVUS ISSUE 2
I
S
S
N
0
7
3
8
-
9
3
8
8
1
8
9
Plate 1. Diagnostic differences between species.
1a,1b. Difference between Amphidromus baerorum and Amphidromus smithii, photo of NHMUK.
2a,2b. Difference between Amphidromus davidmonsecouri and Amphidromus smithii, photo of NHMUK.
3a,3b. Difference between Amphidromus frussenae and Amphidromus ventrosulus, photo of NHMUK.
4a,4b. Difference between Amphidromus cargilei and Amphidromus ventrosulus, photo of NHMUK.
5a,5b. Difference between Amphidromus daoae and Amphidromus cruentatus, photo of NHMUK.
6a,6b. Difference between Amphidromus naggsi and Amphidromus ingens, photo of ZMMU.
Volume: 52 THE FESTIVUS ISSUE 2
I
S
S
N
0
7
3
8
-
9
3
8
8
1
9
0
Plate 2. Diagnostic differences between species.
7. Amphidromus petuchi ;8. Amphidromus reflexilabris for comparison, photo of RMNH; 9. Amphidromus calvinabbasi;
10. Amphidromus juniorabbasi;11. Amphidromus richgoldbergi; 12. Amphidromus “givenchyi of Sutcharit Panha, 2016” for
comparison, photo of Andy Tan.
