Dear Andrew G. et al.,

I think Sinistrella in the context you employed below is a lapsus for
Sinistralia.

Sinistrella Mayer, 1887 [type Pleurotoma americana Aldrich, 1885 from the
Jackson Formation (?), Eocene of the Southeast U.S.].  Sinistralia H. and
A. Adams, 1853 [type Fusus maroccensis Gmelin, 1791] is Fasciolariid in
shell, opercular, radular, and soft part morphology [Chatfield, J. E. and
K. R. Smythe, 1982.  Living specimens of Fusinus (Sinistralia) gallagheri
Smythe and Chatfield, 1981 from Masirah, Oman. Journ. Conch. 31: 95-99.].

I already conceded that Sinistralia, as I employed it, may not be
monophyletic, but it is even less likely congeneric with Fusinus
Rafinesque, 1815 [type Murex colus Linnaeus, 1758].

Since the tendency nowadays is to eviscerate Fusinus (e. g. use of Aptyxis
and Heilprinia at the generic level by Turgeon, D. D., J. F. Quinn, Jr., A.
E. Bogan, E. V. Coan, F. G. Hochberg, W. G. Lyons, P. M. Mikkelsen, R. J.
Neves, C. F. E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F. G. Thompson,
M. Vecchione and J. D. Williams, 1998. Common and scientific names of
aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: mollusks, 2nd
edition. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 26, Bethesda,
Maryland.), I think it defensible to use Sinistralia as a subgenus (based
on the the common feature of sinistral coil as an expedient for
classification) until our "gel-jockey" colleagues demonstrate suspected
paraphyletic relations by molecular cladistics.

Harry


At 10:38 AM 11/10/99 +1300, you wrote:
>To my knowledge the subgenus Sinistrella is based only on direction of
>coiling. If I am correct in this, as sinistrality/dextrality is of no
>taxonomic standing, there is no basis for using the name, making it an
>outright synonym of Fusinus.
>
>Remember, if coiling direction was a taxonomic character, a sinistral
>specimen of say Amphidromus cambojiensis would be in a different subgenus
>or genus to a dextral specimen of the same species. This of course is
>ridiculous.
>
>The various species ascribed to Sinistralia do not appear to be closely
>related to one another. The species probably belong to several other
>subgenera. This would make Sinistralia as currently used paraphyletic.
>
>Harry, can you suggest any literature on the group?
>
>Andrew
>