>M. gigas and S pratasensis was synonimized by Harasewych & Kantor in 1991
>and that opinion was also accepted by Coovert  & Coovert, 1995 so it is the
>most accepted nowadays. However, I've heard about a new extensive work to be
>published wich rediscuss that again... who says Taxonomy was not a funny
>thing?
>
>Bibliography:
>COOVERT, G. A. & COOVERT, H. K., 1995. Revision of the Supraespecific
>Clasification of Marginelliform Gastropods. The Nautilus, Vol. 109, Nos. 2 &
>3.
>HARASEWYCH M. G. & KANTOR, 1991. Rediscovery of Marginellona gigas (Martens,
>1904), with notes on the anatomy and systematic position of the subfamily
>Marginelloninae (Gastropoda: Marginellidae). Neumoria 37: 1-19

I have both of these papers, and going by the images in H & K 1991,
there is no doubt about conspecificity.

The surprising thing about the species is its solidity. Photos give
an impression of thinness and fragility, but in fact they are solid
shells.
--
Andrew Grebneff
165 Evans St, Dunedin, New Zealand
64 (3) 473-8863
<[log in to unmask]>
Fossil preparator
Seashell, Macintosh & VW/Toyota van nut