Dear all,
Here's another thing I've been wanting to ask about. A
couple years back, I talked to Ed Petuch, and he told
me something that I found rather puzzling: every shell
that William Clench described, excepting Conus
anabathrum burryae, is invalid. When asked about Conus
abbotti, I believe he said it was a synonym of Conus
jucundus. I agree that C. jucundus is closely related
to C. abbotti, but I don't think it actually IS it.
As for the theory that all of Clenches' species are
invalid, I didn't believe that at all. So I reach the
point of this message; anyone have any thoughts on
this? What do you think? I'd love to hear opinions.

Peace,
James



__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com