CONCH-L Archives

Conchologists List

CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Bill Fenzan <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Conchologists List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 4 Dec 2006 20:07:12 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (86 lines)
Dear Don, Andre, Dick & Lyle,

Here is a summary of published information on the Conus
couderti/ziczac/beddomei issue.

In 1979, Petuch & Anders reported "rediscovery" of Conus couderti in The
Shell Collector, Number 2. They identified the shells of a Grenadine Islands
population with a black & white color pattern as Conus couderti without
providing a reasoning for doing so.  This is important because there is no
existing type specimen of C. couderti - only the original illustration.  The
last line of the article promised that there would be "...more on this
species in the next issue of The Shell Collector."  Unfortunately, Number 3
was not issued.

In 1980, Danker L. N. Vink published: Finding the True Conus beddomei
Sowerby in (Hawaiian Shell News, vol. 12, No. 12 (December, 1980), pages
3-4).  In this reference, Vink clearly explains why he believes Conus
couderti is not the shell from the Grenadines.  He concludes it should be
called Conus beddomei Sowerby III, 1901.

In 1982, Coomans, Moolenbeek & Wils published the portion of their
alphabetical revision of the conidae covering the letter "B".  They concur
with Danker Vink's conclusion on C. beddomei after study of the holotype
specimen and note the misidentification of Petuch & Anders in 1979.

In 1985, Coomans, Moolenbeek & Wils published the portion of their
alphabetical revision of the conidae covering C. couderti.  The conclude
that the name C. couderti should be considered nomen dubium until the type
specimen is rediscovered.

In 1986, Alan Kohn published his paper on type specimens of described
species of Conus for the years 1810-1820.  Included in this paper is
information on Conus ziczac Muhlfeld (with umlaut over the u), 1816.  Kohn
says about the holotype:  "The specimen is undoubtedly from the western
Atlantic rather than the Mediterranean Sea. Conus ziczac Muhlfeld (sic),
1816 appears to be a previously undescribed species and hence I consider it
valid.  According to E. J. Petuch (pers. comm.) it occurs in Florida, the
Bahamas and Central America."  No further information is provided to
substantiate this information.  Note that Alan Kohn does not clearly say
that Conus ziczac is the correct name for the Grenadine population discussed
by Vink.

In Malacog 4.1.0 (today), at http://www.malacolog.org/search.php?nameid=6342
, Conus ziczac is listed as occuring in Florida and the Bahamas citing the
1986 information above.  In my opinion, this does not authoritativly answer
the original question about the correct name for the shells from the
Grenadines (i.e. the "northern" Caribbean shells - in relation to Brazil).

My view:

Conus couderti Bernardi, 1860 - In my opinion, this is a synonym of Conus
erythraeensis Reeve, 1843.  I have a copy of the original description and
plate with the figure and have seen wide variation in the pattern of C.
erythraeensis including shells that match the figure of C. couderti.

Conus beddomei Sowerby III, 1870 - In my opinion, this is a subspecies of C.
archetypus Crosse, 1865 (found in Brazil) from the Grenadines.  Photo of the
type is on Alan Kohn's website.

Conus ziczac Muhlfeld (w/umlaut), 1816 - In my opinion, this name can only
be assigned to a recent population after careful study.  Photo of the type
(a worn juvenile less that 10mm long) is on Alan Kohn's website.  I could be
an earlier name for C. beddomei, or given its high spire, it could be an
earlier name for C. branhamae Clench, 1953.  Until I see a compelling study,
I prefer to hold this name as a dubious one.

I doubt DNA will answer the questions soon.  Many cones do not have a type
specimen that can provide tissue for genetic typing, so how is a standard
established for the species?  This is a separate topic that requires its own
thread.

Another topic that bears on this problem is that juvenile cones have not
been well studied.


Bill Fenzan
Norfolk, Virginia, USA

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2