Thanks for the detailed information, Wayne. I believe the depth of the
dredged sand is 100-140 feet. Is that right?

I am looking over some of the micros from my second visit to JU Lloyd. Among
others, I found four Cyclostrema cancellatum, a second Cirsotrema dalli (I
want my dalli!), Vexillum cubanum, 2 more worn Crassispira adamsi (deemed
rare), and several more Viridrillia cervina.

I will be adding to my list of new-to-me species fairly soon. (I sent of
list of 38 to Conch-l some months ago).

Save some of the drift for us out-of-staters, folks!

David Kirsh
Durham, NC


> From: Wayne Harland <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Conchologists of America List <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:46:48 -0500
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Conus at Dania Florida
>
> Without seeing the Conus in question and from the original description the
> most logical choices would be 1. Conus flavescens, 2. Conus attenuatus, 3.
> Conus mindanus, 4. Conus patae, 5. Conus jaspideus.
>
> The "borrow area" for the Dania beach reclamation project lies between the
> 2nd & 3rd reef structures off Dania.  These reefs roughly parallel the
> shoreline and crest at about 40' for the 2nd reef & 60' for the third reef.
> The distance between the two is about 700 yards.  The areas between these
> reefs are clean sand with virtually no growth.  As the beach areas erode due
> to wave action the sand migrates back out to sea.  The reason they call it
> reclamation is they are just putting the sand back up on the beach where it
> "belongs".  Some of us say that if it "belongs" there it would stay there.
>
> The get back to the Conus  -- all the species I've listed are recent species
> and can be found alive off south Florida.  C. flavescens, C. mindanus, and
> C. jaspideus are routinely found on sand at night here.  C. patae is more
> cryptic and associated more with live reef but many dead specimens have been
> found near reef areas in sand and reef rubble.  I've heard of C. attenuatus
> being found live off SE Florida in the 70's and early 80's but none
> recently.  The possibility of these being true fossil species would be
> somewhat remote since these current offshore reef structures are
> comparatively recent (i.e.. less than 100,000 yrs old).
>
>
> Wayne Harland
> [log in to unmask]
> "The trouble with doing something right the first time
> is that nobody realizes how difficult it really was."