Hi, Marlo!
The shape of the siphonal canal also appears different in the two specimens shown. The one on the left has a canal that angles toward the left, and is more tapered and somewhat shorter that the one on the right that appears more perpendicular and longer, with the anterior portion of the outer lip being more sinuous. Also,the apertural striae, although rather weak, appear more pronounced in the specimen on the right.
Maybe those, and other, differences may be part of the range of variation of F. tulipa, or there may be some genetic differences which we have not yet discovered. I'm a lumper and prefer to err on the side of caution. So, if I were identifying both those specimens, I would regard them both as specimens of F. tulipa until genetic studies either combined or separated them.
Best regards,
Ron Noseworthy
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 12/25/15, Marlo Krisberg <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Subject: Re: [CONCH-L] Fasciolaria tulipa v. hollisteri
To: [log in to unmask]
Received: Friday, December 25, 2015, 3:51 AM
#yiv7310089698
#yiv7310089698 --
_filtered #yiv7310089698 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2
11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv7310089698 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2
11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv7310089698 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15
5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv7310089698 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11
6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv7310089698 {font-family:Pristina;panose-1:3 6
4 2 4 4 6 8 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv7310089698 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11
6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
#yiv7310089698
#yiv7310089698 p.yiv7310089698MsoNormal, #yiv7310089698
li.yiv7310089698MsoNormal, #yiv7310089698
div.yiv7310089698MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}
#yiv7310089698 a:link, #yiv7310089698
span.yiv7310089698MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv7310089698 a:visited, #yiv7310089698
span.yiv7310089698MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv7310089698 p.yiv7310089698MsoAcetate, #yiv7310089698
li.yiv7310089698MsoAcetate, #yiv7310089698
div.yiv7310089698MsoAcetate
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}
#yiv7310089698 span.yiv7310089698EmailStyle17
{color:#1F497D;}
#yiv7310089698 span.yiv7310089698BalloonTextChar
{}
#yiv7310089698 span.yiv7310089698EmailStyle20
{color:#1F497D;}
#yiv7310089698 span.yiv7310089698apple-converted-space
{}
#yiv7310089698 .yiv7310089698MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt;}
_filtered #yiv7310089698 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
#yiv7310089698 div.yiv7310089698WordSection1
{}
#yiv7310089698 MY question is
for all those who use the name F. hollisteri
Weisbord, 1962 or F. tulipa hollisteri. I can
accept the possibility of an allopatric (occurring in
different geographic areas or in isolation) form of
F. tulipa that could be consistent with Weisbord’s distinctive characters for F.
hollisteri (“being stouter and in having canaliculate
rather than tight sutures”) distinguishing it from F.
tulipa. But, can anyone provide evidence that the
specimens offered as F. hollisteri are from isolated
populations that consistently conform to these two
distinguishing characters. My analysis of my Florida
specimens of F. tulipa discloses numerous specimens
essentially identical to Weisbord’s description (and many
specimens offered as F. hollisteri), including the
two distinguishing characters.
I would especially like to hear from Collectors
with Florida specimens of F. tulipa with canaliculate
sutures take among living populations that also displayed
tight sutures.
F
hollisteri is F. tulipa
MarloFrom:CONCH-L - John Timmerman
Sent: December 24, 2015
Allen, The Eastern North American Busycon
complex, its many described and often changing thoughts (and
sometimes contentious debates) on species are a fine example
strongly supporting your thesis in my humble opinion.
John Timmerman From: Conch-L - Allen Aigen
Sent:
December 20, 2015
I have been
considering the use of subspecies names. They tend to be
overused and some taxonomists will not use them. Looking
at dealer's lists however, they are popular, but the
more names, the more sales! If a population is distinct
enough to be a subspecies, why not make it a species or just
a variant? The worse offender for misuse is having
'subspecies' living together in the same environment
without significant interbreeding. F.
hollisteri and F.
tulipa are apparently allopatric, but getting specimens
from southern Panama has not proven easy. From what I
remember, two related species that are basically allopatric
but meet a a line have a very narrow band of crossbreeding,
as the crossbreeds are not as viable and do not interbreed
well with either population (this may depend on what
characteristics separates the species...) Subspecies
should interbreed readily (assuming they meet) with a very
wide band of indistinction. Also subspecies have evolved
from an earlier species, so lacking a good idea of the
family tree in a good time frame can make for poor usage.
Like calling Cinctura
hunteria 'C. lilium hunteria' because they are
apparently so similar and the lilium name
was described first. However they probably are closer to
being cousins than subspecies or sister species, based on
the facts that: 1.) they are both found living together in
the Gulf (sympatric), and C.
lilium was probably evolved directly from C.
apicina while C.
hunteria was derived from C.
evergladesensis which was evolved from C.
apicina. But we do not have good genealogies for most
species, so subspecies are generally named from the most
common related species, which is also usually the oldest
name. Fasciolaria
tulipa, and to a lesser extent
the related Cinctura species, are
generalists with a wide diet and environmental tolerance and
a rather variable phenotype, so they can adapt to a new
(but not radically different) environment without needing
to evolve to fit. Where they do make a fairly distinctive
colony, they still generally include other, less common
forms. F. tulipa inhabits
Caribbean islands separated by water deeper than they
normally live (even during lower sea levels of glacial
periods.) Thus they do tend to have more or less
distinctive colonies, but probably would readily interbreed
if they got together as the genotype for the species would
probably cover all of them in an irregular overlapping
pattern. The trouble is setting limits for the species
(which is essentially a human tendency to pigeonhole an
irregular continuum.) This is especially difficult when
dealing with fossil species, but we do not have the needed
biochemical (eg DNA) data even for the living species to
help draw lines. I would
appreciate any feedback!
Allen
Aigen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|