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:
Chris Vos <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Conchologists of America List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:25:03 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (46 lines)
Hi Marcus and Emilio, et all,

First of all I would like to thank all those who have replied to my question
yesterday. It is indeed - as Marcus states - not a shame to give your
opinion about an issue, even if you are not agreeing with what is said. More
even, such opinions are appreciated.

On the brasiliana issue: Whether it is a forma or a subspecies is still open
to discussion. Based on the specimens in my collection, I agree wirh the
term "geografical form" for now. Apart from the flatter top, they basically
are more or less the same. These days, both varieties are found in Brasil
(north), and in the juvenile stage, it realy is very hard - read "more of a
guess" - to distinguish them. The brasiliana seems to be more "eastern", as
I have one from Uruguay as well, but none more north than Brasil.

On the abbotti issue: I hold over 40 Tonna galea galea ranging from Spain to
Italy, Greece & Cyprus, Turkey, Morocco and down to Senegal as far as
Namibia. On the Central Ameican side, I've got them from Florida over Texas
down to Honduras (magnificent giants, those two) as far as Colombia, and all
are within the normal range of variety of what is known as T. galea galea.
However, before I start convicting or synonimising, I would like to see the
publication and only then pass judgement. Untill then, I'll give it the
benefit of the doubt. I think Marcus will probably be right, and it will
come to the description of a Venezuelan brasiliana.

On the pennata issue: Aha, there's a good one. I do agree with the fact that
maculosa is not a valid name. According to the latest issue of the rules of
zoological nomenclature, it should be synonimised, as 3 other molluscs have
been named Buccinum maculosum as well. However, the first available name is
NOT pennata, though sulphurea by A. Adams, originally described as Helix
sulphurea even. I was already aware of that, and this is on our "to do" list
in our revision of Tonnidae.

I think I can conclude this matter by stating an answer from somebody else
who replied to my callout:
    Dear Chris,

    I see that again something seems to be going wrong with Tonnas...A
reason more to think about something valid and colorful to be  published

Well, we're working on it, but we're far from finished ............

Thanks again to all,

Chris

ATOM RSS1 RSS2