Bit of an odd one this. Described as Biddulphia from King George’s Sound, Australia. Single example on the slide. Mounted in Styrax. No makers name but prepared by JA Long. Olympus BHB microscope using 450nm LED light. 63x Leitz Pl Apo 1.4 objective, oil immersion. Olympus Aplanat Achromat condenser, oil immersion, oblique lighting. 2.5x Nikon CF PL photoeyepiece. Monochrome converted Nikon d850 camera. 38 images stacked in Zerene (Pmax).
Back to the name. This is described as Biddulphia. I looked through Schmidt’s Atlas, and the only thing that came close was Plate 419, Figure 3 (shown above). A translation of the entry gave the following;
“Miang Besar, Borneo, r.m. Achnanthes javanica Gruno, in Cleve and Möller, Diat. No. 147, forma rhombica Grunow, in Cleve and Grunow, Arkt. Diat. p. 18. Achnanthes javanica Ehrenberg is a nomen nudum and not considered in the literature. Since the name A. javanica Grun. has been generally used in the literature since 1878 and is clearly known, I believe that a name change is unnecessary; a renaming would be a completely unnecessary burden on the nomenclature.”
‘Nomen nudum’ was a new one on me. Apparently it is a “naked name” in scientific taxonomy that looks like a valid name but is not, because it was published without an adequate description, illustration, or other formal criteria required by the rules of zoological or botanical nomenclature. Because it is invalid and has no taxonomic status, a later author can establish a new, valid name with the same spelling for the same organism, taking the authorship and date from their later valid publication, not the earlier “naked name”.
So, it seems to be a name given to something but it is not a valid name. Am I any closer to knowing what this is? No, not really unfortunately. Any ideas, please let me know.