Some stories never seem to find an end. One of them is that of of Zoila orientalis and its winding tail of synonyms. In "A Monograph of the living Zoila" (2001) I told the story as far as it went back then:
"This species has a long taxonomic history. The magazine "The Connoisseur of Seashells" has been accepted as a publication meeting the standards of the ICZN and at least some of the names introduced there are taxonomically valid (see Cossignani & Passamonti 1991, Wilson 1993, Lorenz & Hubert 1993, Groves 1994). In many cases, names were merely listed as forms and therefore have no taxonomic value. In the Issues 1 and 2 (1985a, b), however, several Zoila were described in a correct trinominal way, which means, as subspecies. Among these is albanyensis, which was accepted as taxonomically valid by later authors (e.g. Cossignani & Passamonti 1991, Wilson 1993, Lorenz & Hubert 1993). The name orientalis was described on the same page as albanyensis, in exactly the same manner: with a wellrecognizable specimen with its origin ("S. Australia"). Strangely, this name was neglected by everyone (Raybaudi 1992e, Wilson 1993, and also by myself, when describing raybaudii Lorenz 1992). Also the name intermedians is a synonym of orientalis. The type figures of intermedians, claimed by Lobetti (1986) to come from the west coast, unmistakably show southeastern shells (text fig. 23): The large dorsal spotting, the irregular margins, the formation of the extremities, and in particular, the absence of a distinct columellar lateral flange identify all three types of intermedians as the southeastern population later named raybaudii. Also the comparative text given by Lobetti reveals that he was studying southeastern shells (which were probably sold to him with incorrect locality data). Although in the beginning of the article, Lobetti (1986) introduced a "forma intermedians", in his comparative table the taxonomy is trinominal ("Zoila marginata intermedians")."
The specimen illustrated by Raybaudi in 1985 is designated as lectotype of orientalis.
When I revived the name orientalis and lifted it to species status, I did not reveal the full story: I had noticed that the shell illustrated by Raybaudi seemed to come from a deeper water population, probably from the Ceduna-area. In the eighties, the shallower populations around Kangaroo Island were hardly known and most specimens of orientalis were trawled ones. When I named marginata raybaudii in 1991 I chose these shallow water shells because they were becoming readily available at that time. The differences of the shallow water shells to the original figure of orienalis were quite obvious! I did not go as far as splitting up orientalis into a shallow- and a deep water population, as I thought that would be too much at a time. In the back of my mind, I was sure, this bit of information I had not shared in my Zoila-book was going to cause problems one day. And now this is exactly what has happened.
In Visaya Vol. 2 No. 1, Ja van Heesvelde and Jan Deprez are describing the deep water population of Zoila orientalis as Zoila orientalis gabensis. They correctly refer to the first mentioning of the name orientalis Raybaudi 1985 in the Connoisseur of Seasdhells No. 1 p. 8-9 with reference to figure 7C, which is the brief but universally accepted valid description of orientalis as mentioned above. The shell illustrated with a newly introduced name is the holotype (ICZN Art. 72.1.2), hence designating the shell as lectotype as done by me was actually superfluous.
However, van Heesvelde and Deprez challenge the rules of the ICZN and the holotype: it is obviously a deep water shell, hence the forma-name "profunda" a few lines below would be correct to use for it, whereas the name orientalis must refer to the shallow water population not illustrated by Raybaudi. This is bullsh..., excuse me, an error. In addition to what I have stated above, the forma-name "profunda" has no taxonomic value, and the shell illustrated would in any case be the same taxon as the trinominal "Zoila marginata orientalis". The shell illustrated by Raybaudi in 1985 is the holotype of Zoila orientalis orientalis, and nothing can be done to change this. The taxonomic availability of the name, however, was made by Raybaudi in the Connoisseur No. 3-4 p. 19 (1985), which contains the necessary differentiation from other taxa lacking in the brief description of Connoisseur No. 1. After the particular shell was considered lost for many years it is now in my posession and here illustrated from both sides for the first time.
To conclude: the typical Zoila orientalis orientalis is from deeper water. Z. O. gabensis Van Heesfelde & Deprez is a synonym. The shallow water populations, if one wanted to subdivide them, are Zoila orientalis raybaudii Lorenz 1992.
Incidentially, the holotype of gabensis is a slightly distorted shell. This is no problem according to the ICZN Art. 17.3, as malformed shells may be used to name a population. It is not allowed, however, to name malformations as such (as in the case of rosselli f. edingeri: the name is explicitly chosen for aberrant golden shells, therefore not available for the population now known as satiata). This was misunderstood by Wilson & Clarkson p. 242, who stated "There is no such rule". In fact, there is: Art. 17.3 under certain circumstances is suspended by Art. 1.3 (exceptions), where under 1.3.2 it invalidates taxa based on aberrant specimens as such"*. The rule 1.3.2 simply says that malformations cannot be named. 17.3. says that populations can be named on the basis of a specimen that happens to be malformed, as long as the descriptions refers to the population, not the malformation.
* the exact English translation may differ, I have a German version of the ICZN
Many thanks to Klaus Groh and Ronald Janssen for valuable suggestions.