Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 4 Aug 1998 23:00:41 EDT |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In a message dated 98-08-04 13:38:24 EDT, you write:
> Semipallium vexillium (Reeve,1853)
>Chlamys (Chlamys) rubida (Hinds,1845) acc to A.Rombauts 'Guidebook to
>Pecten Shells'.
Stanley, Nancy & all,
I am sorry to say that Rombouts assignation of vexillum to Semipallium was
in error. It was not his error, but Grau's and then Hertlein's.(per Waller,
1972) The Semipallium's have a distinct shagreen microsculpture, while the
Bractechlamys do not and vexillum definately does not have shagreen
microsculpture. The correct genus is Bractechlamys Nancy, I was wrong when I
told you Comptopallium, although it was placed there as well as in
Bractechlamys, but Bractechlamys is correct. Bractechlamys evecta Iredale,
1939, which is a jr. synonym for vexillum Reeve, was the type for the genus
Bractechlamys. That is probably as clear as mud, but at any rate put the
species vexillum in the genus Bractechlamys. :-)
Carole Marshall
P.S. Stanley, you are right when you said the latin name can cause enough
controversy and genera are a nightmare. Waller in 1972 placed vexillum in
Comptopallium and then in 1989 placed it in Bractechlamys but still
Semipallium's have shagreen.
C
|
|
|