Dear Mike,
 
I heard that the two shells might be immature specimens of a more common
species, of what who knows.  Alternatively, I was told that it was more
likely a new Marginella species.
 
Scott Jordan
 
-----Original Message-----
From: David Monsecour <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, March 26, 1998 1:35 AM
Subject: Re: The case of "missing" shell
 
 
>Dear Mike,
>
>the problem with this shell is that it is not a real Cypraea, but not a
>real Ovulid either. The authors thought it would be best to create a new
>family for it; but I don't know why it's in Cypraeidae.
>
>David
>Belgium
>
>On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, Michael Hoelling wrote:
>
>> Nachricht geschrieben von INTERNET:[log in to unmask]
>> >Can anyone give me an update of the case of that Chimaeria
incomparabili=
>> s
>> stolen from the American Museum of Natural History in NY, one year ago?
>> <
>>
>> Talking about this species, I didn=B4t see the original paper, but upon
>> seeing pictures of the shell I wonder why it should be classed in the
>> family Cypraeidae (as in Guido Poppe=B4s Website) and not with the
Ovulid=
>> ae.
>> Does anybody know more about it?
>>
>> ciao
>> Mike
>>