Hi Lynn
 
Many thanks for all that information on American/Caribbean Cones.
You only learn so much from books and it is good to have other peoples
hands-on experience.
Appreciated.
                Dominic
=====================
Dominic Rawlingson Plant
[log in to unmask]
=====================
 
----------
> From: Lynn Scheu <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Cone Identification
> Date: 21 May 1998 01:33
>
> >Date:    Mon, 18 May 1998 11:06:09 +0100
> >From:    DOMINIC RAWLINGSON PLANT <[log in to unmask]>
> >Subject: CONE IDENTIFICATION
> >
> >Two years ago I found a nice cone, ht: 51mm, off the Florida Keys which
I
> >identified as Conus bartschi - though I have also been told it is Conus
> >regius.
> >In Walls "Cone Shells" it looks like the picture at the bottom of page
580
> >(C. regius) and not like the picture on page 148 (C. bartschi).
> >On the other hand in Abbott/Dance "Compendium of Seashells" my shell is
> >very similar to the photo of C. bartschi shown on the bottom of page 272
> >while it does not have the high sloping spire of the C. regius
illustrated
> >in the picture at the bottom of page 267.
> >Can any "Cone" expert give me me a definitive way of telling the two
apart?
> >====================
> >Dominic Rawlingson Plant
> >[log in to unmask]
> >=====================
> >
>
> Hi Dominic,
>
> I also found a nice Conus regius off the Florida Keys.  Mine was a young
> one, about 38 mm, and it is one of my favorite shells. Especially since I
> have picked about a 5 mm thich "hat" of limy encrustation off its spire!
>
> Bobbi's information is perhaps the best way of telling the two cones
apart,
> but it won't help much if you are not sure where the cone specimen was
> found.  One thing you should know about these cones (since you are
asking):
>  they are probably all descended from a common ancestor. Add to those two
> names you have, Conus bartschi and C.regius, the names C. cedonulli, C.
> trinitarius, C. aurantius, C. julieandreae, C. sanctaemarthae, C.
> trinitarius, C. panamicus, C. mappa, probably C. harlandi, maybe C.
archon,
> and a bunch of others. What you get when you pile them all in a pot is a
> C.cedonulli complex stew. There are specific differences among these
taxa;
> any cone specialist can go on for a long time about them, and big
arguments
> can develop. What I do know about the group is that the Isthmus of Panama
> split the ancestral species (singlar) or species (plural): West Coast
> species from East Coast species.  How many species had already evolved at
> that time, I don't know. But tracing them from place to place is
fascinating.
>
> (Gary R., all those C.'s are for you.)
>
> Lynn Scheu