Gili, C., 2015. Revision of the Nassariidae (Gastropoda, Neogastropoda) of the malacological collection of the Museu de Ciències Naturals de Barcelona,. Arxius de Miscel·lània Zoològica, 13.
Annex 5. Taxonomic modifications with or without grouping or segregations.
Anexo 5. Modificaciones taxonómicas con o sin agrupaciones o segregaciones.
There are current samples that retain a history of taxonomic changes that may be followed through the original labels, i.e., there was a taxonomic reinterpretation of the sample material, since the text was not literarily transcribed, or something was added. The determination of the species was modified according to the trends of the moment.
- In some cases, certain errors were produced in the transcription of the original labels, which were usually almost damaged, as in sample MZB 88-6231 where the label indicates Nassa articulata (L.). However, Linnaeus did not describe any Buccinum articulatum; the specimens of the sample corresponded to the species Nassarius reticulatus.
- The original sample label MZB88- 6071 of the Serradell Collection (No. 1498), indicates only Nassa incrassata Müll. from San Sebastian, and in the latest label of the Museo de Biología de Barcelona, it is indicated Nassa incrassata fasciata Sc. Obviously the reviewer assigned a name of subspecies to the seven specimens of the sample; subspecies that was not considered initially.
- In the initial label of sample MZB 88-6592 of the Gros collection, it is indicated Nassa costulata Ren. var. encaustica whereas the label of the Museo de Biología de Barcelona indicates Nassa costulata madeirensis Rve. In such case, the specific name was preserved but the one of the variety was modified, giving it the category of subspecies. Likewise, in sample MZB 88-6632 the label of Serradell indicates Nassa ferussaci Payr., whereas, the one of Museo de Biología de Barcelona specifies Nassa costulata ferussaci Payr. This means that the species name was modified considering the previous name as a subspecies of the new specific name.
- In Sample MZB 88-6634, it was observed labels of two different samples of the Serradell collection, Nassa unifasciata Kiener, with No. 1495, and Nassa Guernei Locard, with No. 1496. The label of the Museo de Biología de Barcelona indicates Nassa costulata encautica Brus. But the typewritten display label specified the name of Nassa costulata castanea Brs. The author of the label of the Museo de Biología de Barcelona gathered the two samples of the Serradell Collection considering they corresponded to a single species of the same locality, thus assigning them the specific and subspecific names that he deemed to be correct. Subsequently, the author of the typewritten label considered that the sample did not correspond to the subspecies or variety indicated on the previous label and modified it.
- In samples MZB 88-6064 belonging to the Samá Collection and MZB 88-6069 belonging to the Bofill Collection, the original labels indicated, respectively, Nassa reticulta (Lin) var. and Nassa nitida Jfr., and the subsequent labels of the Museo de Biología de Barcelona in all the samples indicated Nassa reticulata nitida Jfr. The reviewer modified the original determinations considering that those specimens should be attributed to the subspecies nítida of the N. reticulatus species
- There are samples with an additional label indicating the name of the person who conducted the taxonomic review. Thus, in sample MZB 88- 6680 with original label of the Martorell Collection, and with the material determination as Nassa sp., it was observed another label assigning the specimen to Nassarius siquijorensis A. Ad. with 'Det. Giner' added. A third label, from the Museo de Biología de Barcelona, preserved the specific determination set by Giner.
- In sample MZB 88-6368 with original label Nassa sp., but containing a specimen which does not belong to the Nassariidae family, there is an additional handwritten piece of paper, indicating 'not Nassa'. Moreover, another paper was found with the same script and text in sample MZB 88-6364, although in this case the contents belonged to the Nassariidae family. This suggested taxonomic assessment of the sample’s contents after arriving to the Museum.