Was the animal part of the original description?  If so, how does
gloroceanus differ from gloriamaris and ammiralis?

John

John & Cheryl Jacobs
Seffner, FL
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marien Faber" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: [CONCH-L] New species of Cone: it' s a dwarfed gloriamaris


> Conchlers,
>
> From a fellow malacologist I have received the original description of C.
> glorioceanus. There is no mentioning of a different genus, only a
> comparison
> to C. gloriamaris and C. ammiralis.  Compared with C. gloriamaris the
> authors mention several differences: (1) In both species the finely
> reticulated tent-pattern forms darker bands, but the dark bands in C.
> glorioceanus are not as elaborate and do not form separate patches as it
> is
> often the case in C. gloriamaris. My comment: note the word "often", and
> remember there is only a single C. glorioceanus. This means that between
> both nominal species there is no difference in colour pattern at all. (2)
> The new species differs from Conus gloriamaris by the broad shape, the
> carinate shoulder, [and] the concave outline of the spire. My comment:
> Small
> (i.e. subadult C. gloriamaris has carinate shoulders too, only later the
> shoulders become more rounded. The broad shape and the (slight) concave
> spire both are determined by the low spire of this individual shell. (3)
> the
> much smaller size [of C. glorioceanus]: about one-third of large specimens
> of Conus gloriamaris. My comment: if you see a single, 5 ft tall Dutchman
> then you cannot claim that the Dutch form a species different from Homo
> sapiens characterized by smaller size. A fair comparison needs multiple
> specimens of both nominal taxa. (4) the protoconch of C. glorioceanus is
> white, in C. gloriamaris it is pink. My comment: this might be of specific
> importance and need further research. Is the protoconch of C. gloriamaris
> always pink? Unfortunately the protoconch in C. glorioceanus is too poor
> to
> be used in a differential diagnosis and protoconchs of C. gloriamaris are
> not figured.
> Further the authors compare C. glorioceanus with C. ammiralis. The number
> of
> differences between the two is the same as between C. ammiralis and C.
> gloriamaris.
>
> Marien
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> [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.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>

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