To amplify slightly on Eduard's comments, I'd like to say that the anatomical
differences invoked to justify specific divisions in the Hawaiian Cyp. teres
would not pass muster if analogous traits were used to 'split' off new
"species" of humans: blue eyes, green eyes, red hair, freckles, skin color,...
ad nauseam.

Since our collective knowledge of human genetics is so well studied, such traits
are considered inconsequential. However, things like papillae type, mantle color
or tentacle shape seem to loom large when observed in two, three,... even five
cowries! When we ignore what we know about genetics as it functions in humans
and declare non-traits as indicating "new" species, we're throwing the baby out
with the bath water!

A recent search of the WWW turned up yet another downside to a seperate path to
defining cowry species: mitchrondrial DNA (mtDNA) is not solely inhereted from
the female ovum. It is overwhelmingly inhereted from the mother, but not
exclusively. A man in Scandanavia has all but 10% of his mitchondria identical
to his father's. Only his blood and a few other tissues contain maternal
mitochrondria. Humankind has been traced, through mtDNA, to 'Seven Daughters of
Eve' and from there to a "mitochrondrial Eve," but that isn't the whole story of
humankind by a long shot. We know better.

And one other long-awaited result has come to light,... from Hawaii, no less.
The "crossbreed" half-dolphin and half-pilot whale 'mule' turned out to be
fertile. Now there is a "wholphin" swimming about, 1/4 pilot whale, 3/4
dolphin. It seems that Nature can't read taxonomy books. The ethos of pilot
whale pods and dolphin pods keep their gene pools seperate,... but given the
chance, life finds a way. It is only reasonable to expect that similar things
happen amongst the cowries.

Aloha,

Bob Dayle
http://cowrys.org

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Quoting Eduard Heiman <[log in to unmask]>:

> Dear Keith,
> best wishes from Rehovot. I remember your visit and shells you showed me and
> our discussion about the teres complex. Fortunately Robert Dayle published
> since then a wonderful work regarding the Hawaiian teres: he measured each of
> more than  800 teres shells in his collection, counted teeth of each shell,
> and made pictures of each shell from different views (total about 5000
> pictures). Mr. Dayle published this unique work as a database, which can be
> saved on a CD.
> As you know, Cyp. burgessi and Cyp. alisonae were described based mostly on
> the animal's anatomy hence it seems to me that nobody can answer your
> question regarding your dead found shells.
> Conchologically speaking: all shell characters are smoothly integrate in
> Dayle's database, even these of rashleighana. My conclusion based on Dayle's
> database is that it is impossible to single out more than one teres taxon in
> the Hawaiian Islands--Blasicrura teres.
> Best regards
> Ed
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Keith Zeilinger
>   To: [log in to unmask]
>   Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 9:53 AM
>   Subject: Cypraea burgessi?, Cypraea teres?
>
>
>   Yesterday I found a freshly dead Cypraea while diving on the north shore of
> Oahu, Hawaii.  It was lying on the floor of a cave at 10 meters.  Twenty
> years ago I would have called it Cypraea teres, but today I don't know what
> to call it.  This shell is 25.5 mm in length and 15 mm in width.  It appears
> to be mature since the protoconch is covered by callus.  It is so glossy and
> slippery it wants to slip from the hand.  It has a pronounced labial callus
> with only 3 very small dark spots, one near each end and one near the middle.
>  The columellar callus is almost non-existant but does show 3 almost
> pin-point dark spots.  It does not have the callus of a Cypraea rashleighana.
>  The color of the base is a rich cream color (whitish but not pure white).
>   The dorsum is a grey ( almost a bluish-grey) with a single dark brown
> dorsal blotch.  It does not have the columellar callus and large spots of
> what we now call Cypraea alisonae or Cypraea latior.  I have been told that
>   "true Cypraea teres does not occur in Hawaii".  Two years ago I visited
> Israel and carried with me all of the
>   "Cypraea teres, rashleighana, burgessi, alisonae, latior complex" specimens
> I had, from Hawaii, and Eduard Heiman studied them, but I still don't know
> what to call this specimen.  Opinions please.
>   Aloha, Keith Zeilinger

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