>Thank you very much fore sending the image of the holotype of Lambis
>adamii to (among others) me.
>The image shows a specimen which indeed differs from "normal" L.
>lambis, but on the other hand, it just may be a dwarf freakish
>specimen of that species; compare e.g. Kreipl et al., Pl.. 35 fig. 3.
>I have asked Mr. Cossignani (through e-mail) whether he could
>provide me with a copy of the original description (hopefully also
>in English, as my Italian is extremely poor).
>Until I have seen the description in total I cannot expres a firm
>opinion.Even better may be the possibility to examine a few
>specimens myself.
>
>thank you for your kind explanations. So, if I understand correctly from
>Italian
>magazine, L. adami is distinguished from L. lambis forma nana by: smaller
>dimensions, shorter and rather blunt digits, apical digit protrudes forward
>and is well
>separated from the spire, siphonal channel is very short and straight. Also,
>tubercles are different and less frequent in adamii. Adamii is also more
>massive for its size.
>
>I searched the web a little-
>here you can see some images of adamii that were offered by dealers:

Some don't seem to agree well.

>Hmm, specimen shown in Italian magazine indeed looks like separate
>species. But some specimens offered by dealers are not so convincing...

It is necessary to amass a large collection of lambis & adamii from
the same area and see if they intergrade. If they intergrade they are
either a) variation within lambis or b) two species hybridizing.
 From what I see, the differences may be of specific rank. The short
canal in particular; this is most unusual in Lambis, and i would
expect a population of dwarf L. lambis to have canals of relatively
normal proportions.

>I wonder if there can be gradual passage from "lambis forma nana" to adamii,
>something like between  "Tibia" powisi and laurenti? I have been accumulating
>good number of both and there are all kinds of "intermediates", there seem to
>be no sharp boundary between both species.

I don't think they are separate at all, especially when you look at
the miocene fossil specimens; the species is very variable (and tiny
dwarves occur!).

My specimen agrees well with the illustrated "dwarf". It differs from
a small (c100mm) specimen of L. lambis in my collection by (L. lambis
in parentheses):
-entire shell very heavy & solid (lightweight for size)
-labrum very thick (only moderately thickened)
-labral spines grossly reduced, omly shoulder one longer than a nub
or node; set well before labrum
           (located basically at edge of labrum)
-adapical spine a tiny nub (8mm in 44mm specimen), set halfway
between shoulder spine & spire axis
           (long, curved; clasping left side of spire)
-abapical spine a scale, opening onto posterodorsal margin of
stromboid notch (shortat 8mm, located
           4mm behind and completely independent of stromboid notch)
-fewer spiral lirae below shoulder
-dorsal bodywhorl nodes same in number but much smaller; last 2
separate (adjoining, slightly fused)
-spire-angle wider
-bodywhorl contracting more rapidly to canal
-canal very short, barely projecting (2cm long yet broken, projecting)
-inductura forming heavy domed callus at base of canal (much thinner callus)
-axial rib within aperture marked; strong axial channel between this
& labrum (relatively flat surface)
-aperture much narrower
-labrum fused along length; spines entirely closed except at tips,
fused at bases, and later growthlines
            pass across spines without deviating (labrum disappears
into base of each spine; spine sutures
            open into aperture here)
--
Regards
Andrew

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