According to the RKK, the type localities are :

C. milneedwardsi Jousseaume, 1894 : "Aden"
C. clytospira Melvill and Standen, 1899 : "Arabian Sea, about 125 miles WSW
of Bombay (...)".

In "Rare Shells", S. Peter Dance wrote that C. clytospira had been found
"adhering to a sub-marine cable (...), the cable having lain undisturbed for
years at a depth of 45 fathoms"

As I know, the only differences between the two subspecies are, as Lyle
says, the more pinkinsh coloration and the more prominent banding of C. m.
clytospira.

But C. m. milneedwardsi is not larger than C. m. clytospira. Both can reach
more than 170 mm.

Another thing : in the RKK, the holotype of C. milneedwardsi is supposed to
measure "46x14 mm". So the description concerns a juvenile specimen ?

Bruno
www.zonatus.com


-----Message d'origine-----
De : Conchologists List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]De la part de Lyle
Therriault
Envoye : jeudi 2 juin 2005 13:28
A : [log in to unmask]
Objet : Re: Conus milneedwardsi - why no nominative form?


Ross,

good question.....the only thing I can think of, having not been around in
the turn of that century....is perhaps the first decribed specimens were
caught around the East African area? Most of the milneedwardsi f. clytospira
do come from Indian waters, but to me they are just a subspecies of
milneedwardsi since they 1.) are not as large as milneedwardsi, 2.) exhibit
more pinkish coloration and more prominent banding , and  3.) their range is
"seemingly" compacted within one certain area. ( India, Sri Lanka area)

Somewhere a long time ago I have seen pictures of a clytospira that was
nearly yellow and black.

yet some folks consider mikneedwardsi to be the subspecies, even tho it was
described first. ?
confusing.....there are SO MANY conus conus complexes arising like the
jaspideus/mindanus/verrucosus complex.....not to mention the textile
complex, good lord if I made a list of all the different subspecies names of
textile I have run across in the last 15 years I bet there has been 50 or
more.  Even tho maybe 3-4 are valid.

maybe one of our more scientific--advanced friends can help out.


----- Original Message -----
From: J. Ross Mayhew
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 6/2/2005 2:51:13 AM
Subject: Conus milneedwardsi - why no nominative form?


Can anyone tell me why there is no "nominative form", or "s.s." of  Conus
milneedwardsi Jousseaume 1894?  It seems that all the ones from India are
assigned to  Conus milneedwardsi clytospira Melvill & Standen 1899 - why is
this a valid form, when it seems that since this is the "Glory of India"
cone, the original description of milneedwardi would have been from India,
and clytospira should seemingly have been simply declared a synonym?

From SUNNY, warm New Scotland,
Ross Mayhew.

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