Hi Sergio (and all),
Glad to help, although my primary interest is in getting the best WoRMS entries for these names. This matter is not completely straightforward, as I shall explain, but I am happy with my conclusions so far.
There are two relevant entries in Blainville (1825). You have missed the Hesionidae N. splendida entry. It is on p.443 and clearly linked to Savigny p.40 which is Hesione splendida (first published by Lamarck). I give both as they literally are, without the interpolations you made to suit your purposes.
p.443 "La N. éclatante; N. splendida, Savigny, loc. cit., p. 40, et Égypte" [ = Nereis splendida, new combination from the original Hesione. Here éclatante is the informal name from the Latin 'splendida', with both meaning brilliant/shining. Both Savigny and Lamarck had used it previously, so Blainville does too. It is impossible to ignore that this is a usage as a recombination into Nereis, where Blainville lumps all sorts of worm. ]
p.439 "La N. éclatante; N. splendida, Nereis clava, Leach" [ = Nereis clava => nephtyid => Nephtys hombergii or similar. Note Blainville does spell out the 'Nereis' of Nereis clava. ]
So Blainville used 'N. splendida' twice, and the context matters for interpretation of each occurrence. The nephtyid on p.439 became known as Nereis clava to workers of the time. That is the name Blainville intended, apparently previously an informal name received for the specimen which came from Leach. Blainville intended Nereis clava to be used as the name and did use it later (eg., in the plates) when he included it in the caption as being the previous dictionary entry name for Nephtys hombergii. Now the complication is that he also gave it the same informal name as he used on p.443 for the Lamarck/Savigny hesionid, and that informal name éclatante, when translated into Latin, is 'splendida'. This is confusing to us today that 'N. splendida' can occur in two different species entries, and some later workers were also bemused by Blainville's inclusion of 'splendida' for N. clava (see the Quatrefages 1866 entry on Nereis clava), but mostly those workers still used N clava as the name for Blainville's species. We should too. It just is not possible to use the same name twice for two very different worms from the same work. One of them must be an unintentional duplicate, and I am of the view that the 'N. splendida' inclusion in relation to Nereis clava should be commented on but disregarded by us. In volume 57 of the dictionary Blainville (p.483-484) states in discussion of Nephtys hombergii (translation) "which has been described in the Dictionary under the name of N. clava". We cannot contradict Blainville and say, no, no, the name is really N. splendida, not N. clava.
You can read much more on Nereis clava Blainville, 1825 in the WoRMS entry http://www.marinespecies.org/polychaeta/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=339276
Just so nobody gets lost looking for N splendida Blainville I have added a further WoRMS Nereis splendida entry, as Nereis splendida [auct. attributed to Blainville, 1825], and referred it to Nereis clava. This covers the usages if anyone did use N. splendida for Blainville's nephtyid, with or instead of Nereis clava. But I could not find any contemporary usages as a valid name. I found one as a synonym with no mention of 'clava', again in a dictionary entry, this one for Nephtys. Please let me know if you come across others. In 20thC catalogues Hartman has a listing for the Blainville p439 splendida, but she relies on Quatrefages for a secondhand Nereis clava entry. In Sherborn there is only Nereis splendida Grube, but he does have a listing for the synonymous listing usage I mentioned just above.
If one regards Blainville as having used Nereis splendida as the intended name for the N. clava nephtyid, and one disregards the awkward simultaneous presence of Nereis clava in the entry, and the use close by of Nereis splendida for the hesionid, then it would be a primary homonym senior to Grube's species, thus Grube's splendida would need to be replaced mandatorily, but as that point of view is rather weak on evidence from Blainville's own text, it is difficult to advocate for it.
From: Sergio Salazar [mailto:savs551216 from hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 9 August 2017 1:44 a.m.
To: Geoff Read <Geoffrey.Read from niwa.co.nz>; Annelida discussion group <annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Nereis splendida RE: Nereis falsa
Dear Geoff and colleagues,
I welcome your interest and comments on our recent publication on Nereis falsa. You all know I'm slow and sloppy, and thank any comments to help improve my ideas or conclusions. The message was especially interesting because my revision of Hesione is now under evaluation, and any suggestions are welcome as well.
There are, however, wrong premises around the name Nereis splendida de Blainville, 1825. It was introduced in page 439 (de Blainville 1825) with comments in parenthesis as: "N(ereis). éclatante (French name), N. splendida (new name), N. clava, Leach." The author later comments about its affinities with another nephtyid (p. 440), N(ephtys). ciliata. There is no indication for Hesione splendida Savigny in Lamarck, 1818.
In de Blainville (1828:482) Hesione splendida is listed with other species in the genus, but there is no indication for N. splendida, and another nephtyid, N. hombergii (p. 483) is included but no comment about the precedent name.
On the other hand, Geoff is correct about the ruling in the code. The species group name Nereis splendida Grube, 1840 was not replaced. Fauvel, as indicated in the paper, regarded it as indeterminable, and Olga Hartman and John Day regarded it as a junior homonym.
De: Geoff Read <Geoffrey.Read from niwa.co.nz<mailto:Geoffrey.Read from niwa.co.nz>>
Enviado: martes, 8 de agosto de 2017 09:54 a. m.
Para: Sergio Salazar; Annelida discussion group
Asunto: Nereis splendida RE: Nereis falsa
If I may make a further contribution.
I think Blainville (1825, vol. 34) recombines Hesione splendida of Savigny p.40 to Nereis splendida, but later (1828, vol.57) reverts it to the original Hesione. Most importantly I think Blainville is not the author of Nereis splendida.
It has been overlooked, I don't know why, but Nereis splendida in Blainville (1825) is actually just a recombination of Hesione splendida Lamarck, 1818 (or 'Savigny in Lamarck' for some of you). Hesione splendida is indeed very splendid and is a valid hesionid. Thus the combination Nereis splendida (Lamarck) created by Blainville is a superseded subsequent combination. It is a completely mistaken re-assignment by Blainville, who wrongly placed all sorts of diverse annelids into Nereis. He made taxonomic messes, not just in this instance.
Thus this 1825 "Nereis splendida" temporary recombination does not threaten by primary homonymy the better known 1840 Nereis splendida Grube. As the taxa are secondary homonyms and not now considered congeneric Grube's name is still available, can be used, and does not need to be replaced (article 59.2). This is contrary to older opinions (Day 1962) and more recent ones.
Gravina et al (2015) place Nereis splendida Grube, 1840 as a synonym of Nereis falsa Quatreges, 1866. Also Sergio et al (2017) thought N. splendida Grube was unavailable. However, as Grube's name does not need to be replaced, Vieitez et al (2004: 513) are more correct in placing the junior Nereis falsa as a subjective synonym of the senior N. splendida, so that is the treatment WoRMS will use for now. I have no ideas on whether they are really synonyms or not.
Human interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Marie_Ducrotay_de_Blainville
Nereis splendida (Lamarck, 1818) http://www.marinespecies.org/polychaeta/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=334197
Let me know if you spot any errors.
Dr Geoff Read
+64-4-386-0321 | +64-21-209-1748 | 301 Evans Bay Parade, Greta Point, Wellington | www.niwa.co.nz<http://www.niwa.co.nz>
Enhancing the benefits of New Zealand's natural resources
To ensure compliance with legal requirements and to maintain cyber security standards, NIWA's IT systems are subject to ongoing monitoring, activity logging and auditing. This monitoring and auditing service may be provided by third parties. Such third parties can access information transmitted to, processed by and stored on NIWA's IT systems.
From: annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu<mailto:annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu> [mailto:annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu] On Behalf Of Sergio Salazar
Sent: Wednesday, 2 August 2017 1:44 a.m.
To: Annelida discussion group <annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.edu<mailto:annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.edu>>
Subject: [Annelida] Nereis falsa
A note about the puzzle of Nereis falsa and how we could solve it has been published by Patrick Gillet, Victor Surugiu and myself in Revista de Biología Tropical.
You can download it in https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/rbt/article/view/26635/29967
How false is Nereis falsa? (Annelida, Phyllodocida, Nereididae) | Salazar-Vallejo | Revista de Biología Tropical<https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/rbt/article/view/26635/29967>
How false is Nereis falsa? (Annelida, Phyllodocida, Nereididae)
Please tell me if you want to see the figures for it, and for those of you working in the northern Aegean Sea, or around the Gulf of Naples, if you would be willing to join us for a further study on this species.
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida from net.bio.net<mailto:Annelida from net.bio.net>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 20819 bytes
Url : http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/annelida/attachments/20170809/f5ca0caf/image001.jpg