THE CENOZOIC BRACHIOPOD TEREBRATULA 



85 



Fig. 2 Figures of Concha anomia. the holotype oi'Anomia terehratula. 2a, woodcut from Colonna ( 1616): 2b, woodcut from Major ( 1675): 2c, engraving 

 from Klein (1753). 



ambiguities which arose when Linnaeus (1767) changed his descrip- 

 tion of A. caputserpentis from a smooth, fossil brachiopod to a 

 capillate living species (now Terebratulina retusa), although he 

 retained the reference to the Colonna figure. An application to the 

 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to change 

 the type species of Terebratulina d'Orbigny, 1847 from Anomia 

 caputserpentis Linnaeus, 1758, to Anomia retusa Linnaeus, 1758, 

 disposed of the ambiguity caused by Linnaeus himself when he 

 altered his definition of A. caputserpentis between 1758 and 1767 

 (Brunton & Cocks (1967: 295); Ruling of the Commission, 1968). 



Under Terehratula. 201., Linnaeus listed three separate illustra- 

 tions. The first, 'Column, purp. 22. f. 1', refers to the upper left figure 

 of a smooth, strongly folded brachiopod. The second refers to 'List, 

 angl. 240. t. 8. f. 46', which is a non-plicate Jurassic shell from 

 England (Lister, 1678). The third reference, which confirms that 

 Linnaeus did indeed intend the upper left brachiopod to be the type 

 of terehratula, is unmistakably the same (redrawn) Colonna illustra- 

 tion reproduced in a figure by Klein ( 1 753) (Fig. 2 herein). Buckman 

 (1907: 528) pointed out that Lister's figure did not match the 

 description given by Linnaeus, and that the Colonna-Klein figure 

 'must be taken as the holotype, which, in fact, has been the usual 

 practice'. 



Linnaeus included the central figure in Colonna's plate in his 

 'Hysterita. 203. Mus. Tess. 90. t.5.f. 1,2,2. Column, purp. 22. f. 3? 

 Trilobos.' This large, strongly ribbed and folded fossil rhynchonellid 

 does not correspond to the Mus. Tess. illustradon listed by Linnaeus, 

 which is an internal mold of Schizophoria (Brunton et al., 1967). 



The two upper brachiopods in the Colonna figure are both smooth 

 terebratulid brachiopods with large open foramens and strongly 

 delineated growth bands. Across both drawings is the caption: 'Con- 

 cha anomia vertice rostrato ', and beneath the left figure, although 

 probably relating to the central brachiopod on the plate, is the word 

 Altera (another). On the adjacent page 23, in Purpura, the chapter is 

 headed Concha rarior Anomia vertice rostrato. I. Cap. XII (or 'rare 

 Anomia shell with apical beak'). Although there is no scale on the 

 illustration, the brachiopod on the upper right is at natural size {icon 

 magnitudinem aequat on page 23 in Purpura). 



CONCHA ANOMIA VERTICE ROSTRATO 



Some of the problems which have made it difficult for earlier and 

 present authors to define Terehratula arise from the lack of corre- 

 spondence between the figures on page 22 of Colonna, and the text 



on the following pages. In particular, several specimens mentioned 

 on pages 23-24 are not illustrated at all, although they were num- 

 bered sequentially by the author. 



Thus, Lee & Brunton (1998) assumed that the strongly folded 

 figure on the upper left on page 22 was that described in the text on 

 the facing page (Cap. XII) under the heading 'Concha rarior Anomia 

 vertice rostrato ', and accordingly they concluded that this specimen 

 was that collected by Colonna from Andria. More recently, we have 

 found that this might not be correct. In five original copies of 

 Colonna's Purpura (1616c) held by the University of Naples 

 'Federico IF (two in the Library, and three in the Department of 

 Biologia Vegetale and the Botanical Garden) and in another original 

 copy held in the Botany Library of the Natural History Museum, 

 London, the two figures at the top of page 22 are marked with '4' 

 (upper left), and 'F (upper right). These small numbers are not shown 

 in the two published reproductions of Colonna's plate (Dollfus & 

 Dautzenberg, 1932; Muir-Wood, 1955), nor in the 1675 edition of 

 Colonna's Purpura edited by Major. 



The following section attempts to clarify the problems we have 

 encountered. 



1 . Colonna described four Conchae in the text on pages 23-24 and 

 marked them with a Roman or Arabic notation. Of these, only the 

 first (I) and the fourth (4) are figured on page 22. The four 

 Conchae are: 



(i) Concha rarior Anomia vertice rostrato. I. Cap. XII ("I" on 

 page 22 and 'F on page 23). The description of 'F corre- 

 sponds to figure 'F (page 22, top right). 



(ii) minor! ('2'at the edge of the margin of line 29 on page 23). 

 This specimen is not figured by Colonna. 



(iii) Altera Neptunia maior III. imbricata. Cap. XIII ('III' on 

 page 24), This specimen is not figured by Colonna. 



(iv) Concha Anomia IV. margine undosa. Cap. XIV. ('4' on 

 page 22 and 'IV' of page 24). The description of 'TV 

 corresponds to figure '4' (page 22, top left). 



2. The first shell, (that is the smooth, unfolded specimen on the 

 upper right on page 22) comes from Andria. The third comes from 

 Nettuno (50 km south of Rome). The second and the fourth come 

 from the Museum of Ferrante Imperato in Naples and their 

 provenance is not given. 



3. Colonna thought the four Conchae {ic the figured and unfigured 

 specimens described on pp. 23-24) were similar to each other. 

 Indeed, in the index on p. 41 three of these are included under a 

 single name 'Concha anomia quae, rarior vertice rostrato Plin. 



