Hi Chris,

I know of one other previously listed record for a species that was
removed from the most recent list...a 66.15mm Morum dennisoni (
http://www.worldwideconchology.com/fam/Harpidae.shtml#Morum_dennisoni
) that I sold to a collector some years back when Don Pisor and Kim
Hutsell were compiling and publishing the largest recorded
shells.  The shell still resides in this person's collection.

Based on the explanation by Philippe Quiquandon here on Conch-L I
assume the Morum listing was removed because a picture of the
specimen with calipers to gauge the shell size was not
submitted.  Like any data collection project the records are only as
good as the data submitted or available.  Let's face it, for every
listing there is a 50/50 chance that another specimen exists in a
collection that is larger.  Often the holder of a larger shell is
either not interested in documenting it, or is unaware of the shell
size record project.

That includes oversize shells residing in museum collections.  Museum
personnel do not have the time, funds nor charter to identify and
photograph the large shells in their holdings.  And I know of at
least a handful of shells in museums that are larger than the listing
for the species; at least from the Fifth Edition of the publication.

My assumption, since I do not have access to the current listing, is
that anyone holding a shell previously listed as the largest known
specimen of a species that was superceded by a smaller size shell
needs to resubmit the record according to the guidelines now
instituted by the current publishers for the shell size record
project; i.e. photos with a caliper gauge.

At least in the case of the Morum, it is out of my hands to do so
since I am no longer in possession of the shell.

Rich
www.worldwideconchology.com




At 03:24 AM 3/15/2011, you wrote:
>Hi Paul,
>Thanks. Sometimes I cringe at WRS's. I've seen some lulu's in wrong
>ID's to "shuffled" records. Take propinqua, this might be a real
>record but also may be a carneola or a bouteti. I've had local
>Hawaii collectors come to me for verification of sizes only to
>discover the species ID was wrong.
>
>A good example is I have a Conus pennaceus that I feel is a WRS from
>Hawaii but can't submit it because a larger size was submitted from
>the Philippines(?)  A Cone expert will confirm that pennaceus
>doesn't occur in the PI but the record stands?
>
>I had verified WRS of shells that were simply tossed aside for sizes
>that were smaller? Example is Philippia radiata. I have 4 much
>larger then the current record but my VERIFIED radiata was tossed
>aside. Another case is my friend Mel Pang who had a unquestionable
>WRS Fusinus sandvicensis that was a listed and verified record. Now
>it's been over-seeded by a much smaller specimen.
>
>I really don't understand why cases like this exist? I've measured
>100's of new WRS over the years and many confirmed sizes were
>discarded for smaller sizes. I once had access to the newer records
>but after realizing many discrepancies I haven't relied much on
>them. I'm sure the majority is valid but has anyone else experienced
>similar problems?
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Mar 14, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Paul Kanner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > The 6th edition of "The Registry of World Record Size Shells" has
> it at 66.1mm from Tahiti.
> > Regards,
> > Paul Kanner
> > On Mar 14, 2011, at 2:07 PM, ScubaChris wrote:
> >
> >> Can anyone tell me what's the current World Record size? And from where?
> >> Thanks!
> >>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------