> Gijs,
>
> It seems that not all modern conchological literature generally accept
Jung's revisionary placement of Terebellum terebellum in Seraphidae? In many
cases the Terebellum is still grouped with Strombidae.  Is it that Jung's
paper is not well known, or is this revision considered controversial and
rejected by some?
>
> Rich
> worldwideconchology.com
>
Indeed Rich,

Jungs paper was completely overlooked by e.g. Kreipl et al. (Conchological
Iconography). I understand that in most literature dealing with fossil
species Jungs revision is accepted (by most).
Recently Dr. Luiz Ricardo Simone has performed some analysis on
stromboideans. most surprising in his analysis is that the Xenophoridae are,
once again, placed in the Stromboidea. This is supported by observations
made by
Kiel, Steffen & María del Carmen Perrilliat, 2001. New Gastropods from the
Maastrichtian of the Mexcala formation in guerrero, southern Mexico. Part 1:
Stromboidea. N.Jb. Geol. Paläont. Abh. 222(3): 407-426.
on the protoconchs.
Anyway, within the cladogram presented by Dr. Simone the Struthiolariidae
appear to be the most "primitive", aporrhaids are more advanced, xenophorids
are more advanced, then Terebellum followed by the strombid genus Canarium.
Unfortunately, Tibia-like species and Varicospira are omitted, but the
number of differences between Terebellum at one hand, and the more advanced
Strombidae (although they share a number of characters that sets them apart
from Xenophoridae) makes the recognition of Seraphidae at least plausible.
In my private collection I have separated them as distinct families.

Gijs