Bill,
some good points. Perhaps i was a bit vague in my DNA rambling.....I
should have worded that ( loosely ) as perhaps DNA studies need to be
done more to establish the determination of NEW species......( within a
complex )
I must be relatively lean on specimens of erythraeensis.....it seems all
the specimens I have in my collections and the ones I have seen apart from
my own all look the same, somewhat spotted. I did not realize there was
this much variation in patterning within this species.
So what species did in fact Petuch and Anders "rediscover" in the
Grenadines, beddomei or erythraeensis? I've long heard from other cone
collectors that a true beddomei has the black and white color pattern.
Regards, Lyle
> [Original Message]
> From: Bill Fenzan <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 12/4/2006 8:08:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Conus couderti/ziczac/beddomei
>
> 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.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
