...everything you always wanted to know about conus episcopatus
and conus magnificus, but wish you'd never asked....
 
 
Hi Eduardo,
 
I didn't forget about your question, but the mail server went down
right after you posted it, and service was just restored.  You actually
asked one simple question and one complicated one, and I'm only
really qualified to answer the simple one.
 
The most distinctive difference between the two species, at least from
American Samoa, is in the tenting.  All conus magnificus from Samoa
have pinkish tents, and all conus episcopatus have white tents.  That
may not seem like much of a reason to separate the two species, but
this is simply the easiest way to identify them.  When I first came to
American Samoa, the same question plagued me, until I finally saw
enough of them that I could readily identify them at a glance.  It's a lot
easier if you are looking at live shells, because the periostracum on
magnificus is always clear pink, and the shells are usually very clean.
The periostracum makes magnificus almost "shine" red.  Episcopatus,
on the other hand, has a clear to whitish periostracum, and is much
more likely to have coralline deposits attached.  They often have big
reef scars also, while none of the five magnificus that I'm looking at
has a trace of a scar.  Tent size and distribution are the second most
important clue, with magnificus having over twice as many tents on
average, and they are much smaller.  Magnificus may have a few
larger tents, but there will be many large tents on any episcopatus.
 
You should also check the aperture, as the pink color is usually
visible there, too, on magnificus, especially near the edge of the lip.
Episcopatus has a perfectly white aperture, with an occasional
yellowish tint.  Besides the tent coloring, the color of of the shell
may also be helpful.  A fresh magnificus is usually dark maroon-
brown, and faded beach shells are a rusty brown color, still showing
pink in the tents.  Episcopatus are usually chocolate brown when
fresh, but range from nearly black to medium brown, and fade to
a golden brown color.
 
Shape wise, the two can be similar.  Magnificus usually has a
bulge at the shoulder, especially in large shells, reminiscent of
consors.  Episcopatus is typically more slender with a gentle
curve and smooth shoulders.  As the shells get more mature and
more inflated, the general outlines become increasingly alike.
 
While these cones may be found very near each other, they do
not share the same habitat.  As you move across the reef flat,
from large boulders on sand, to slabs and boulders on sand
with some rubble, to semi-loose slabs on small branch coral
rubble, you have moved from conus striatus territory to conus
episcopatus territory to conus magnificus territory.  (Conus
textile and canonicus may stray into ANY of these areas.
Omaria shares both the striatus and episcopatus zones.)  It
doesn't matter if these zones are one meter or several hundred
meters wide, as the habitat changes, so will the species.  You
typically find episcopatus by fanning the sand and rubble under
slabs and boulders, while magnificus is usually on top of the
small rubble under a loose or slightly elevated slab.  Occasion-
ally magnificus will be partially buried in the small rubble.
 
Magnificus is not nearly as common in American Samoa as
episcopatus.  You will find about one magnificus for every
five episcopatus, given the same size search areas.
 
The final thing I'll comment on about the two cones is their
behavior after being captured.  Magnificus is comparatively shy,
which may account for the lack of reef scars.  A captured
magnificus will usually remain recoiled in his shell, while
episcopatus will crawl around and investigate all the corners
of your collecting container.  If you put six cypraea caurica
in a bag with five conus episcopatus and one conus magnificus,
when you finish snorkeling you will have one live caurica,
five empty caurica shells, five engorged conus episcopatus,
and a conus magnificus which appears oblivious to the whole
matter.
 
I'll leave it to someone else to recount all the permutations of
the pennaceus/omaria/episcopus argument.  The latest generally-
accepted version (though not universally accepted) is that
episcopus is a form of pennaceus, and episcopatus is a separate
species, even though the shells look very similar.  Conus aulicus
is easily separated by it's acute spire, which never occurs in
either episcopatus or magnificus, as far as I know.  Aulicus is
also usually larger, and has a characteristic shape that carries
over even into the slender "aurantia" form.  Auratinus is somewhat
closer to magnificus, including the pink tents, but has a much
thinner shell and an orange color.  Its cylindrical midsection sep-
arates it from any of the other similar cones.
 
Hope this was helpful,
 
 
 
 
Don
 
 
 
----------
> From: Jose Eduardo de Alencar Moreira <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Conus magnificus x episcopatus
> Date: Monday, January 18, 1999 1:08 AM
>
> GOOOOD morning to all Conch-Lers,
>
> Last Saturday I received a shell parcel with a Conus magnificus inside.
It
> was collected in the American Samoa, an area where both C. magnificus and
C.
> episcopatus can be found.
>
> Looking at Rockel's book and some others it seems to me to be a Conus
> episcopatus, but reading the descriptions and discussions about both
shells
> didn't make it clear to me.
>
> So, the question to our Conus specialists is:
>
> What are the key differences between C. magnificus and C. episcopatus?
>
> Some other questions:
>
> Is C. episcopus just a synonym of C. pennaceus?
>
> What are the key differences among those two shells (C. magnificus and
> C.episcopatus) and C. aulicus and C. pennaceus?
>
> Many thanks in advance.
>
> Eduardo Moreira
> Brasilia, Brazil