Conus nobilis var. vincoomnes Lichtenstein, 1794

Geiger, Daniel L., 2022, Anton August Heinrich Lichtenstein’s (1794) Catalogus Rerum Naturalium Rarissimarum, pars secunda. Facsimile edition and annotated translation, Zootaxa 5127 (1), pp. 1-126 : 115-116

Conus nobilis var. vincoomnes Lichtenstein, 1794

Conus nobilis Linnaeus, 1758 , is a well-known species from the Indian Ocean. The description of C. nobilis vincoomnes Lichtenstein, 1794 , fits exactly C. nobilis victor Broderip, 1842 (e.g., Abbott & Dance, 1983: 247; Röckel et al. 1995: pl. 36, fig. 8), characterized by the two areas with multiple bands consisting of tightly spaced dark brown markings. Both, Lichtenstein (1794) and Broderip (1842) compare their species to C. nobilis and C. ammiralis , further strengthening the identity of the two specific names, although no dimensions were given by Lichtenstein. Lichtenstein noted that this species is extremely rare with the three exclamation marks; C. nobilis victor is still today a rare shell from Indonesia. The name vincoomnes had never been used in the literature, hence, was designated by Geiger (2003) a nomen oblitum, and C. nobilis victor is a nomen protectum. The subspecies is currently accepted as valid in WoRMS.

Note the similarity in the species names ( victor = the winner; vincoomnes = I win all), which may prompt some speculation as to the origin of Broderip’s material. Broderip (1842) had two specimens at hand, one from H. Cuming, the other from the Reverend A. Harford, whereas Lichtenstein based his description on a single specimen. The two Broderip specimens had equal standing as syntypes. Finet & Caillez (1993) inadvertently designated a lectotype by labelling the specimen shown in their fig. 5 as “ Holotype BMNH 1992085”; the wherabouts of the second specimen is not known. The name given by Broderip (1842) may also be seen in the context of naming a small, rare, and finely patterned species akin to C. cedonulli Linnaeus, 1758 . The latter species epithet signifies “I cede to none” or, as Dance (1966) phrased it, “second to none”. Accordingly, C. victor and C. vincoomnes could have been named independently in that tradition, though there is no indication to such an intent in either of the original descriptions.