Gary and all,
 
I know Tom is one of the best scientists working on Pectinidae at the moment, and
I trust he has some great evidence to support his conclusions.  I would expect
that he is not likely to be guessing.  My last reply pounced on Charlie a little
hard, but I felt I was being told to sit down, shut up and accept something on
blind faith because Tom is more qualified than I am.  Of course that is true,
but...
 
I try to keep an open mind, and I welcome new scientific discoveries.  I am only
a collector, but I see quite a few shells, and I have formed a concept of what a
species is.  However wrong and unscientific my method is, the synonymizing of
these two species crosses the barrier of what I can understand without a higher
education in systematics.  I am made to wonder, "What's next?  Are Caribachlamys
imbricata and Chlamys islandica the same?"  Well, your answer might be:  "Of
course not."  But if the other two shells are the same, then how is the lay
person, such as myself, to know what is truly two separate species and what is
not?
 
Tom Waller, the same scientist, has split Nodipecten nodosus from Nodipecten
fragosus.  These two species are far more similar with regard to shell morphology
than Gloripallium pallium and G. speciosa.  It gives the APPEARANCE of a lack of
continuity in how species are determined.  How can he say these two similar
shells are different, but, on the other hand, these two vastly different shells
are one in the same?  I don't even know what the criteria are.   Of course, I
know nothing of the anatomy of any of these species either, and I willingly admit
that I am unqualified to have a professional opinion.  I know you and Tom and
every other malacologist is not out there working his or her butt off to service
the shell collector.  It is just that I find it all very confusing.
 
Travis
 
Gary, are there the same intergrading habitats and corresponding shell forms in
the Gloripallium as with Turbo cornutus?