>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.

Don't confuse "valid" with "synonym"... the two are unrelated. Any
name (even one relegated to synonymy) is valid if it was formally
introduced as a Linnean binomial in approved manner (things were
rather lax until the later parts ofthe 1900s).

Petuch himself here is referring to synonyms I think, and he is a
FINE one to comment on others producing these... he's perhaps the
all-time master of synonyms production.
--
Andrew Grebneff
165 Evans St, Dunedin 9001, New Zealand
<[log in to unmask]>
Seashell, Macintosh, VW/Toyota van nut