Thank you Marcus, checked out the pictures and seems to confirm my
suspicions from what I have found, it looks like a misidentification and
might be a formosus.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcus Coltro" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: Muricidae


> I would say it is a sub-species (or at least a form). If you have both in
> hands you would agree with me. see both:
>
> tenuivaricosus
> http://www.femorale.com.br/shellphotos/detail.asp?photo=745.jpg
>
> tenuivaricosus carioca
> http://www.femorale.com.br/shellphotos/detail.asp?photo=21159.jpg
>
> By the way, C.t.carioca is found only in southern Brazil, while
> tenuivaricosus can be found from south to northwest Brazil. (Carioca is
the
> name of people born in Rio de Janeiro city)
>
> Of course it is one of the shells that need a deeper study to make sure it
> does not deserve an "upgrade" to species...
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> >From: Harry Berryman <[log in to unmask]>
> >Reply-To: Conchologists of America List <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Muricidae
> >Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:17:23 -0400
> >
> >Have a shell labeled Chicoreus tenuivaricosus carioca (Vokes, 1968)
> >
> >Ponder & Vokes, Recent Murex & Hauatellum, 1988, does not list it.
> >Both of Houart's, Chicoreus & Muricidae does not list it either.
> >Radwin & D'Attilio does list it under Siratus tenuivaricosus
(Dautzenberg,
> >1927) but it reads Chicoreus carioca E. H. Vokes, 1968: 39, new name for
M.
> >calcar Kiener, 1842 (not Sowerby, 1823)
> >From this I take it that it would be correct as Chicoreus (Siratus)
carioca
> >E. H. Vokes, 1968 and not Chicoreus (Siratus) Tenuivaricosus
(Dautzenberg,
> >1927) ?
> >
> >If so, is it considered a subspecies or form and then can I go by
M.calcar
> >Kiener, 1842  for more information?
> >
> >Thanks ahead,
> >
> >Harry
>
>
>
>
> MARCUS COLTRO
> WWW.FEMORALE.COM.BR
> More than 3,000 pictures!
> No registration needed!
>