----- Original Message -----
From: "mike gray" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: Triplofusus?


> Andrew Grebneff wrote:
> >
> > > The generic unit Triplofusus is based on Pleuroploca gigantea.
> > > Splitters consider Pleuroploca only to refer to Pleuroploca
> > > trapezium and a few other (Indo-Pacic) species.  All these are in
> > > the Fasciolariidae.
> > >
> > > I think we'll eventually use Triplofusus for the Florida Horseconch,
> > > but change comes slowly.
>
> (snip)
>
> Am I the only one that finds it mildly amusing that, while the
> taxonomists argue whether it is Pleoroploca or Triplofusus or
> Hotglockomorra, the ol' Florida horse conch is still a Florida horse
> conch?

I think it is sad, rather than amusing that these name changes occur. The
international Code of Zoological Nomenclature is all about stability in
existing names. There are lots of (new) rules aimed at preserving species
names but sadly, the unnecessary and often quite confusing upgrading of
subgenus level taxa is not covered. And this is especially bothersome when
done with well known species.
For instance, there are fooks out there that want to replace Strombus gigas
L. by Tricornis gigas (L.)! Not so useful for all those people interested in
the queen conch as an endangered species, a food source, a source for
cameos, an artifact in archeological sites, an object on stamps and coins,
etc., etc. The great majority of people dealing with this species do not
care how close or distant it is from Strombus pugilis (I bet most collectors
keep them in the same drawers too) thus why bother them all with this
nitpicking?

Marien Faber
www.mollus.nl