Hello Jan,

The current determinations of Rombouts' book page 110, plate 9 is:

fig. 6: Annachlamys flabellata (Lamarck, 1819)
fig. 7: Annachlamys striatula (Linnaeus, 1758) [= Pecten macassarensis
Chenu]
fig. 8: Annachlamys reevei (A. Adams in Adams & Reeve, 1850): a valid
species.

Best wishes,

Henk

*****************************************************
Henk H. Dijkstra (Hon. Res. Ass.)
c/o Department of Malacology, Zoological Museum, University of Amsterdam
P.O. Box 94766, 1090 GT Amsterdam, The Netherlands
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
----------------------
Private address:
Gravinneweg 12, 8604 CA Sneek, The Netherlands
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
*****************************************************


> Van: Jan Haspeslagh <[log in to unmask]>
> Beantwoord: Conchologists of America List <[log in to unmask]>
> Datum: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 10:21:21 +0200
> Aan: [log in to unmask]
> Onderwerp: Annachlamys reevei ??
>
> Hello everybody (who isn't relaxing on a sunny beach now...),
>
> I've received some interesting Philippine Pecten's recently, which are
> labelled 'Annachlamys reevei'. I only have one Pecten reference book
> (the Rombouts publication) where it is only mentioned as a subspecies of
> Chlamys macassarensis. The fact is : in the same parcel there's a lot of
> regular C. macassarensis too, and I find it hard to believe this is the
> same species. My 'reevei's' are much more inflated than the
> macassarensis. On the net I found following link with a photograph that
> has a good match with my specimen :
>
> www.nat-museum.sanda.hyogo.jp/coll/shell/mssl/docs/A2001445-A.html
>
> Colour and shape are about the same, but my question is : is this a
> valid species on its own or a subspecies of macassarensis? Moreover I
> have 5 specimen which are the same shape as my 'reevei' but completely
> bright orange in colour. Can I trust these to be 'reevei's' also ?
>
> Any info is highly appreciated!
>
> Nice holidays to everyone,
>
> Jan Haspeslagh
> Belgium