I just wonder if the alleged species in question was a Nassarius
instead of a Cypraea, whether we would have had all these
so called "enlightened" discussions.  Maybe those splitters
might want to enjoy the reverse side of the coin.

Bill F.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Monika Forner" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: The Status of C. Siphocypraea (or Muracypraea) donmoorei


> Hi,
>
> Although I'm by no means a Cypraea expert, I have been concerned with this
> particular question myself for a while, so here is just an outline of what
> can be found on the web about this.
>
> Lorenz's opinion about "donmoorei" in the second edition of the Guide was
> clear:  It is a junior synonym of Cypraea mus bicornis.  However, a short
> time after appearance of this second edition, Lorenz had a note on his web
> site under "What's new?", in which he acknowledged C. m. donmoorei as a
> valid subspecies of C. mus in addition to C. m. bicornis.  This note has
by
> now disappeared again from his web site.
> It is not quite clear whether Lorenz has changed his mind or not.  On the
> same web site, you find the "Checklist"
> ( http://www.cowries.net/checklist/checklist.html ), which makes no
mention
> of donmoorei at all.  However, there also is an "Alternative checklist" (
> http://www.cowries.net/checklist/alternative.html ), which "is meant as a
> forum of discussion" and lists C. donmoorei as a full species (not a
> subspecies of C. mus), while, also on the same web site, his "Iconography
> of Cypraeidae"
> ( http://www.cowries.net/CYPICT/picturelist.html ) lists C. mus bicornis
> forma donmoorei, and, as already mentioned, his sales list
> ( http://www.cowries.net/sale/general.html ) contains C. mus donmoorei as
> "the true form" with "dense, coarse dentition", and a picture showing
this.
> If I remember the note mentioned above correctly, the distinction between
> what Lorenz at the time called C. m. bicornis and C. m. donmoorei was that
> in bicornis the dentition is reduced and not distinct (similar to C. mus
> mus) and in donmoorei the teeth are distinct.  I personally also feel that
> there is a color difference between the two, with donmoorei being lighter
> and the lines reaching higher up on the margins.
> As for shallow water specimens with tubercules, the Guide also mentions
> that in rare instances C. mus mus can be tuberculate.
>
> Over time I have had quite a few specimens of all three forms in my
> collection and trading material.  I believe that I can easily distinguish
> all three -- but, of course, that may be wishful thinking.  On the other
> hand, they are really similar enough that they appear to be varieties
> (subspecies, forms, what have you) of the same species -- unless the
animal
> itself would support a full species C. donmoorei, which I don't know.  All
> material I saw that came from Colombia so far has been what I would call
C.
> m. donmoorei, while all three forms seem to occur in northern Venezuela,
> but only C. m. mus in (at times extremely) shallow water.
>
> This, of course, doesn't really solve the issue at all, just sheds some
> more confusing light on it.  Personally, I go with C. m. mus, C. m.
> bicornis, and C. m. donmoorei, and, maybe, barring further research,
> everybody may have to make their own decisions about this...
>
> Monika
> in San Diego