John,

I am interested to read your original paper for these purported new species.  Were the animals or DNA samples taken from the white shell and compared with samples of the nominate form of perversus from the type locality?  I'm assuming that is what you mean when you say laboratory tests were done. I'm curious if there are differing features.

From a conchological standpoint, I have a very large and well documented series of shells of the perversus complex, including the white Amphidromus.  The white shells are found in a range of shapes and adult sizes, from squat to elongate, which is somewhat of a misnomer in the original description.  These shells were compared and are identical to the type specimen of Amphiromus perversus niveus.

Laidlaw and Solem (1961) addressed the perversus complex in great detail. They have proven beyond a doubt that all of the diverse, far-flung shells of the perversus complex are variations of one species.  Consistent characteristics can be found in their monograph.

This is not to say that the white shell may not be different,  but currently the name niveus is only a color form not subspecific.  So at best, the color form may be worthy of elevation as a subspecies, but with the name niveus.  Other considerations would also need to be addressed.

The Bali shell is also well documented an is undoubtedly a robust color form of perversus.  More than a few names have already been applied to this shell.

I know I am sticking my neck out here and I do not want to create a firestorm by questioning these names added to the literature. When delving into the Amphidromus perversus complex, it is necessary to make comparisons not only against the literature, but also well documented samples of the entire complex throughout the geographical range of a species.

Having said this, once I read the original descriptions of your species I can further convince myself one way or another about the validity of the descriptions.  I would appreciate if you or Pete can provide me with the literature citation for the descriptions.

Many thanks,
Rich
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
www.worldwideconchology.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 04:51:06 -0700
>From: john abba <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: New Species
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>   Dear All,
>
>   Two New Snails for everybody's viewing. Found a year
>   ago, and the top one, was thought to be a
>   Amphidromus niveus P & F Sarasin, 1899, but "
>   Discribe " in Amphidromus niveus, says the snail is
>   elongated. The ones found, pictured below, have a
>   different discription. Names have been given as :
>
>   Amphidromus albulus  Abbas & Krull, 2007
>   www.shelltistic.com/images/Land
>   Snails/Pic1177554497.jpg
>
>   Second snail, thought to resemble a
>   Amphidromus perversus, from Bali, but again after
>   labatorium tests, found to be a species itself.
>
>   Amphidromus kadatuasensis  Abbas & Krull, 2007
>   www.shelltistic.com/images/Land
>   Snails/Pic1177554446.jpg
>
>   For more information on these two Newbi's, please
>   contact Peter krull at
>   [log in to unmask]   Full discription will be
>   provided, by Peter, and questions will be answered
>   accordingly
>
>   Cheers
>
>   John
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------