-----Original Message-----
From: mark <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Saturday, November 07, 1998 3:06 PM
Subject: Fw: Calling all Cone experts!!!
 
 
>
>--
>
>>let's take this apart a bit so we can understand what we have here . 1st ,
>>C. connectens could not belong to the daucus complex, wrong range or
>>province. 2nd,,  C. connectens  is in the sub-genus vituliconus , Daucus ,
>>dauciconus, so now that we have that straightened out  let's move on to
the
>>group it does belong to , it shares patterning and form with planorbis,
>>vitulinus, striatellus, all have classic white banding , one at the
>shoulder
>>, second at the mid-body whorl and light tan to dark brown body color. all
>>are obconic and differ from a typical conical form by having carinate
>>shoulders with tapering sides , some are even pustulated, most have raised
>>concentric lines on the main body whorl.  C. connectens falls between them
>>and as for all the data i found it was quite an arguement as to it's
>>validity .as for the author, A. Adams 1854 is credited in three of the
>books
>>i use ,  but you're right that rockel would not recognise the species, so
>to
>>futher complicate but give the poor namelesss thing a name i would go with
>>the following, CONUS VITULINUS CONNECTENS , A.Adams 1854.
>>Mark & Peta  Bethke
>>Hollywood, Florida
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Martin E. Tremor, Jr. <[log in to unmask]>
>>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>>Date: Friday, November 06, 1998 9:56 PM
>>Subject: Calling all Cone experts!!!
>>
>>
>>>I recently acquired a cone specimen identified as Conus connectens A.
>>Adams,
>>>1855 from the Philippines. I first went to the  MANUAL OF THE LIVING
>>CONIDAE
>>>by Rockel, Korn and Kohn. Guess what? Conus connectens wasn't even listed
>>in
>>>the index, not even as a synonym. I then referred to R. Tucker Abbott's
>>>COMPENDIUM OF SEA SHELLS and found the species listed there with Conus
>>>pulchellus, Swainson, 1822 given as a cinnamon. Going back to Rockel,
Korn
>>and
>>>Kohn's work I find Conus pulchellus listed with Conus circumactus,
>Iredale,
>>>1929 given as the valid name for this species.
>>>
>>>When looking up Conus circumactus, I find the following "Estival & von
>>Cosel
>>>(1986) considered Conus connectens A. Adams, 1855 to be an earlier name
>for
>>C.
>>>circumactus. Coomans et. al. (1985a) considered the type specimen of C.
>>>connectens indeterminable, but Rockel (1988b) concluded that it is a
>>specimen
>>>of C. daucus Hwass from the W. Atlantic. In any case it seems  not to be
>an
>>>earlier name for C. circumactus."
>>>
>>>I am confused!!  What ever am I to call this dear little cone?
>>>
>>>Martin Tremor
>>>St. Petersburg, FL
>>>U.S.A.
>>>
>>
>