Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 25 Sep 1999 22:19:17 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Harry, I think you are right on tract. When I was in South Bimini many
years ago, I collected martinianum, pileare and nicobaricum. I had set
up my aquarium just like I have for all of my trips. I placed all three
species up on their protoconchs in the gravel and as the animals emerged
I took slides of them. The color of the animals were very different.
The martinianum animal is red with darker red spots. Pileare is brown
with darker brown spots. I have seen many of martinianum and pileare
shells from the Pacific and the Caribbean and both species can always be
separated. When I was in the Smithsonian years ago they had them all
together under one name.
Bob Lipe
Harry G. Lee wrote:
>
> Since we have this species, as well as C. aquatile, in Jacksonville waters,
> we have taken an interest in its taxonomy and nomenclature.
>
"This species, quite distinct
> from Cymatium pileare [Linnaeus] by its reddish aperture and not marked
> with alternating black and white blotches..." Which is to say, C. pileare
> has a red aperture and lacks the black blotches between the white parietal
> teeth seen in the orange-mouthed C. maritinianum. Furthermore, C. m. is
> stockier (less elongate aperture, shorter siphonal canal, relatively
> broader outline). In my experience, W. Atlantic shells are identical to
> those collected in the E. Atlantic, but all Atlantic shells can easily be
> distinguished from Indo-Pacific specimens. I think d'Orbigny had it right;
> two separate species.
>
> Harry
>
|
|
|