Opmerkingen over Turbo stagnalis en enkele andere diersoorten door Baster beschreven (with an English summary)

It is pointed out that in contradistinction to the opinion of Henrard & Koumans (Basteria, vol. 1, 1936, pp. 13—16) the names used by Baster in his Opuscula subseciva may not be considered valid. Baster namely in this work does not apply the principles of binary nomenclature, which is distinctly shown by the fact that he used uni- as well as tri- and polynomial names. His other names therefore must be considered to be only binomial by accident. Then the large confusion, which the acceptance of Baster’s names should cause, is pointed out. So for instance Baster’s name Echinus marinus should have priority over Echinus miliaris Gmelin and the name Squilla fusca Baster should have priority over Palaemon varians Leach. If thereforce Baster’s names should be accepted, both the names Psammechinus miliaris (Gmel.) and Palaemonetes varians (Leach) should have to be changed. The correct name of the species best known as Hydrobia ventrosa (Mont.) is discussed. Henrard & Koumans made it clear that Baster’s Turbo stagnalis is identical with Montagu’s species. They named the species Hydrobia stagnalis (Bast.), because they thought Baster’s names valid. There are, however, two reasons to reject Baster’s name: firstly the fact that Baster does not apply the principles of binary nomenclature and secondly the fact that the name stagnalis also is used by Linnaeus for this species in the name Helix stagnalis, a name which is preoccupied and is rejected by Gmelin on account of homonymy. The first valid name for the species is Helix stagnorum Gmelin, which therefore has to be used, the name of the species thereby becoming Hydrobia stagnorum (Gmel.).