 
| Subject: | |
| From: | |
| Reply To: | |
| Date: | Sat, 23 Mar 2002 19:44:14 +0100 |
| Content-Type: | text/plain |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi Steven,
many subgenera are today seen as its own genera. But
I think there could be a great confusion. In the
museums collection I keep them all under Cypraea and
in alphabetical order to find them better also in
a database. I think you could follow Lorenz, but
using only the genus Cypraea I think is correct too.
I would wish me back in the times of Linnaeus and not
in the time of splitterers. Maybe I am a lumper.
with best shelling greetings
helmut form innsbruck
--- Stephen Ross <[log in to unmask]> schrieb:
<HR>
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>The other day I was looking at a website, I think
it was worldwideconchology.com, and they were saying
sumthin about the cowries being recently(?) divided
into 34 genera. Is this pretty well accepted, or
do most people just continue to use the single genus
Cypraea? I'll admit that this website is the
only place I've seen it done. Personally, I like
the idea of one genus, its part of what makes the
cowries unique and special... its not as
confusing as all the other families! However, I
also know there are reasons for making the
divisions. Whats the popular opinion amongst
ya'll?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>~Stephen~</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></div><br
clear=all><hr>Chat with friends online, try MSN
Messenger: <a
href='http://g.msn.com/1HM305401/12'>Click
Here</a><br></html>
__________________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Ihre E-Mail noch individueller? - http://domains.yahoo.de
|
|
|
