@article{fdi:010065023,
  title = {{O}n the validity of {N}oah's giant clam {T}ridacna noae ({R}{\¨o}ding, 1798) and its synonymy with {N}ingaloo giant clam {T}ridacna ningaloo {P}enny & {W}illan, 2014},
  author = {{B}orsa, {P}hilippe and {F}auvelot, {C}{\'e}cile and {A}ndrefou{\¨e}t, {S}erge and {C}hai, {T}.{T}. and {K}ubo, {H}. and {L}iu, {L}.{L}.},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{A} new giant clam species, {T}ridacna ningaloo {P}enny & {W}illan, 2014 has been described from {N}ingaloo {R}eef, {W}estern {A}ustralia. {M}eanwhile, it has been suggested that {N}oah's giant clam, {T}ridacna noae ({R}{\¨o}ding, 1798), previously resurrected from synonymy with {T}. maxima ({R}{\¨o}ding, 1798), is an invalid name. {W}e assessed the validity of resurrecting {T}. noae and designating a neotype for it against the rules of zoological nomenclature and found no flaw in these acts. {W}e then compared the genetic and morphological characters used in the respective diagnoses of {T}. noae and the newly-described {T}ridacna ningaloo. {N}o difference was apparent between {T}. ningaloo and {T}. noae except, possibly, in mantle ornamentation patterns. {I}n particular, the holotype of {T}. ningaloo possesses a mitochondrial {DNA} haplotype identical to {T}. noae. {T}hus, the hypothesis that {T}. ningaloo is a species distinct from {T}. noae was not supported by clear morphological evidence and it was contradicted by the available genetic evidence. {T}ridacna ningaloo should be regarded as a junior synonym of {T}. noae.},
  keywords = {{BIOLOGIE} {MARINE} ; {GENETIQUE} {DE} {POPULATION} ; {TAXONOMIE} ; {ESPECE} {NOUVELLE} ; {CLASSIFICATION} {MORPHOLOGIQUE} ; {HOLOTYPE} ; {MOLLUSQUE} ; {PACIFIQUE} ; {AUSTRALIE}},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{R}affles {B}ulletin of {Z}oology},
  volume = {63},
  numero = {},
  pages = {484--489},
  ISSN = {0217-2445},
  year = {2015},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010065023},
}