Dear friends

I agree in every aspect with Bill comments on this matter. Names become
commonly used (misused should be more correct) without evaluating type
specimens, original descriptions, etc. It is true that doing this for each
taxa becomes a paramount detective work, but I am afraid that it is the
only way to get closer to an answer. I have found myself a similar problem
now that I am finishing a review on South African conidae: for instance,
foir years Conus altispiratus became popular for referring to Conus
gradatulus/patens, although the holotype clearly shows that altispiratus
is in fact something different, most likely a freakish specimen of C.
mozambicus!
As for the DNA analyses, I am working closely on that matter, and I do not
think that they will provide definitive answers to longtime queries as
yet. Still working on the best markers for resolving differences among
groups, and lot of work to be done yet on population genetics. On the
contrary, these analyses might raise new (and very interesting) questions
on Conidae phylogeny.
Warmest regards to all

Manuel Jimenez Tenorio
Jerez, Cadiz, SPAIN

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------