----- Original Message -----
From: "Franck Frydman" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 12:56 AM
Subject: Fw: Re: Harpa major v. Harpa davidus


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Franck Frydman" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: "Conchologists of America List" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 1:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Harpa major v. Harpa davidus
> Mea  culpa , mea maxima culpa , I have sent an unfinished e-mail  by error
> ...Here I go again :
>
> > Some precisions :H. major 's distribution range  only partly includes
the
> one of H. davidis and it is  where they  overlap that    H. major and H.
> davidis are sympatric .The blotch on the parietal wall is  clearly
> individualized . Otherwise the specific features assigned by Rehder  to H.
> davidis  are subject to very little variation , if any  , when H. major is
> extremely variable as far as all  its shell characteristics are concerned
> within a same population as well as all over its distribution range to
such
> extent that  almost any form can be found  anywhere ...As far as the
> blotches are concerned  so far  I  have   seen  specimens  of  H. major in
> large numbers , all of them  with only two  more or lindividualized
> blotches . As a matter of fact I  see no reason to discuss the validity of
> the specific status of H. davidis  and in my previous  e-mail I had
> forgotten to say that  the conchologists who still consider Rheder's
opinion
> with scepticism sure have the right to wait for anatomical studies to form
a
> definitive opinion . Franck Frydman
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Marlo Krisberg" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 2:30 AM
> > Subject: Re: Harpa major v. Harpa davidus
> >
> >
> > > Sure sounds good to me.  I always favored Rehder's characterization of
> > > davidis (The Family Harpidae of the World, Indo-Pacific Mollusca, vol.
> 3,
> > > no. 16, November 27, 1973), but with time and more specimens I've come
> > > around to your view.  The real problem has been finding enough
specimens
> > > from the Bay of Bengal to make a good analysis.
> > >
> > > Marlo
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Conchologists of America List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
> > > Behalf Of Paul Monfils
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 8:01 PM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: Harpa major v. Harpa davidus
> > >
> > >
> > > I have also puzzled over this davidis/major thing in years past, but
> > > after examining hundreds of specimens from a variety of localities, I
> > > have yet to see a specimen which was sufficiently different from the
> > > typical range of variation of Harpa major to justify calling it by a
> > > different name.  My experience has been identical to that of Mr.
Frydman
> > > - some specimens have a single large ventral blotch, some have the
> > > blotch divided by a light band, forming 2 blotches, and others have
two
> > > light bands, separating the dark blotch into three.  However, I don't
> > > think this justifies the statement "H. davidis always has three
separate
> > > blotches when H. major can have one or two".  If the shells are
> > > otherwise identical (or show a similar range of conchological
> > > characteristics), then it seems to me the more valid statement would
be
> > > "this species can have one, two, or three ventral blotches".  Why give
> > > the specimens with three blotches a different name?  If that is valid,
> > > then shouldn't the 1-blotch and 2-blotch forms have separate names as
> > > well?  Color markings, in the absence of other significant
morphological
> > > differences, are not valid grounds for taxonomic separation.  So,
until
> > > additional evidence comes my way, I consider Harpa davidis at best a
> > > color variation of Harpa major, but more likely just a synonym.
> > >
> > > Paul M.
> > >
> >
>