Dear James,
There are other authors who believe that C. Abbott is a junior synonym of C.
jucundus. Danker Vink in La Conchiglia (Number 180-181, March-April 1984,
says "Richard [Dr. Georges Richard in the French shell magazine Xenophora,
issue 14, mars-avril 1983] recognized the holotype as a specimen of the
species normally referred to as C. abbotti Clench, 1942, a junior synonym,
and I fully support this view."
Before 1983, H.E. Coomans, R.G. Moolenbeek and E. Wils published the
Alphabetical revision of the (sub)species in recent Conidae. They covered
C. abbotti in 1979 and concluded it "is a distinct and valid species" after
examination of the holotype. Unfortunately, they did not get past the
letter "e", so C. jucundus was not discussed. This may have caused some
confusion.
Last year, R.M. Filmer published A Catalogue of Nomenclature and Taxonomy in
the Living Conidae 1758-1998. Filmer follows the opinion of Vink, that C.
jucundus is the correct name to apply to shells usually seen labeled as C.
abbotti.
I have not seen the types of either C. abbotti (in Museum of Comparative
Zoology, Boston Mass.) or C. jucundus (in the National Museum of Wales,
Cardiff). I do have good published black & white photos (in Johnsonia and
Basteria) of the C. abbotti holotype and an excellent color reproduction of
the original 1887 description of C. jucundus. There are also color photos
of a shell identified as C. jucundus (ventral view) and C. abbotti (dorsal
view) next to each other in the Compendium of Seashells, but I am not sure
the shell illustrated as C. jucundus is a match for the illustration of the
type I am using. I also have a few shells identified by dealers as C.
abbotti and a few shells identified by dealers as C. jucundus. After
comparing my limited material to the photos at hand, I can not objectively
separate C. abbotti from C. jucundus as it was originally described, though
I still have the shells labeled under different names in my collection. Time
to change labels, again!
Since I am most interested in Cones, I do not have an opinion on the broader
question of validity of Clench species. As I recall, he was primarily
interested in non-marine mollusks. Perhaps some of his marine shell names
have fallen into synonymy, but I would be surprised if all his names had the
same fate. Another factor to consider is that when Dr. Clench was in his
prime (1930s & 40s), it was much harder to obtain access to types (and even
good photos) than it is now.
Thanks for the interesting question.
Bill Fenzan
William J. Fenzan
401 Sinclair St.
Norfolk, VA 23505-4359
USA
wjf401(at)earthlink.net
Phone: (757) 489-4736
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Cheshire" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 3:46 PM
Subject: Clench & invalid species
> 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.
>
> Peace,
> James
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
|
