The problem always resides on the intermediate specimens that makes everything confusing.... but you probably have already seen my
solution

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10204007251572299&l=2737676711749282148

Joke apart, Severns considered nanus a full species on his book Shells of the Hawaiian Islands (WoRMS accepts it too) - we still put
it under Conus sponsalis nanus - to me it looks like a simple color variation, but I am not an expert on Conus. 

I have never seen the original description nor the holotypes

Marcus


From: Conchologists List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Jacobs
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 1:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [CONCH-L] Conus question

I’m trying to determine what the difference is between Conus sponsalis and C. nanus.  I strongly suspect that nanus is just a form
of sponsalis, not a valid species.  If there is a paper out there that discusses this, I would like to see it.  Justification for
splitting the 2 must include differences in the soft parts, not just the shell.  I welcome all opinions.

John

John & Cheryl Jacobs
Seffner, FL
[log in to unmask]

---------------------------------------------------------------------- [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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------