Hi Paul,

Conus fulvobullatus was proposed in 1982 by Bob da Motta in Publicacoes
Ocasionais Da Sociedade Portuguesa De Malacologia, No. 1.  In this paper Mr.
da Motta compares the shell to C.bullatus, then says: "Because of the
coloration, it (C.fulvobullatus) has some resemblance to Conus magus Linne,
1758, but magus has more tapering sides, an attenuated body whorl and an
untwisted columella.  Variable as magus can be, it does not have a pattern
approaching that of the new species."

That is all that is said comparing the two taxa in the original description.
I am not aware of another published account of this species.  Mr. da Motta
wrote a series of articles for World Shells, Nrs. 4,5,6 & 7  starting in
March 1993  titled "Hermes (Pionoconus) magus (Linaeus, 1758): Which is a
magus: Which are not and why".  Surprisingly, Conus fulvobullatus is not
listed and discussed although other shells named by Mr. da Motta are
compared to C. magus.

In the Manual of the Living Conidae, the authors say C. fulvobullatus is a
synonym of C. magus and "Essentially similar to C. assimilis."  C. assimilis
is treated as a form of C. magus with a more ventricose last whorl.  In
other words, it is a shell with a more convex (or fatter) shape.

Hope this helps.

Bill

William J. Fenzan
401 Sinclair St.
Norfolk, VA  23505-4359
USA

wjf401(at)earthlink.net

Phone: (757) 489-4736

----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 8:47 PM
Subject: Conus fulvobullatus?


> Hi folks, especially you conologists -
> I have received some "Conus fulvobullatus".  They match the picture in
Shells
> of the Philippines just fine.  But sitting there on the table they sure do
> look like Conus magus.  Is this a real species, or just one of the
> innumerable forms of Conus magus, or what?  And if it is distinct from C.
> magus, what characteristic(s) will best separate them?
> Regards,
> Paul Monfils
>