CONCH-L Archives

Conchologists List

CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Manuel J. Tenorio" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Conchologists List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:52:25 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (63 lines)
Well, I guess that this list is just some sort of informal forum in which
we all can share comments, opinions and points of view. On the other hand
you are completely correct when you state that opinions ex-catedra
whithout any other support have no much value, and they must be published.
My statement was based in my personal examination of the original
descriptions and the available photos of type material. I haven't
published nothing on this subject, but for instance Filmer (2001) shares
this opinion, I guess that upon examination also of the available type
material and descriptions. Others  authors like Jerry Walls have similar
points of view. Kohn's wen site is full of useful resources for conus
researchers, including lots of original works in .pdf format that can be
downloaded. Kiener picture and description of Conus crenulatus is there,
for instance.
Next time I will be more careful and will include a full set of references!
Warmest regards to all

Manuel Jimenez Tenorio

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:34:38 GMT, Allen Aigen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Manuel,
>I am not questioning the validity of your determination of synonomy, just
the method of dissemination of the information.  Has there been any
publication of the change?  Is this only your opinion or is this in common
usage?  Can you document the synonomy in American Conchologist or other
publication?  Like it or not, opinions need to be published before they
really count.
>
>Allen Aigen
>[log in to unmask]
>
>-- "Manuel J. Tenorio" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Hi all
>
>C. clarki is just a form of Conus armiger Crosse 1858 (nomen novum for C.
>crenulatus Kiener, 1845, non Deshayes 1835). C. frisbeyae Clench & Puley
>1952 is another synonym. C. bajanensis (syn: C. guyanensis) is considered
>by some a Southern subspecies of armiger). In any case, I do have an
>article published in Johnsonia, 1953 by William Clench in which C.
>austini, C. clarki and C. frisbeyae are described in detail. If
>interested, please contact me privately.
>Warmest regards
>
>Manuel Jimenez Tenorio
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
>To leave this list, click on the following web link:
>http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
>Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
>click leave the list.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2