Dear Gijs,
Many thanks for your comprehensive explanation about the placement of
Terebellum in Seraphidae. This proves once again that substantive
information can actually be exchanged on Conch-L ! ¦:-)
I guess the addition of a new family is in order for my database. I've
done a few searches on the Internet for Seraphidae and found three Web
sites, but none include a list of species other than Terebellum. Are there
any modern reference(s) available that list all of the species included in
the Family Seraphidae?
Rich
worldwideconchology.com
At 02:04 PM 4/18/2002, you wrote:
> > Gijs,
> >
> > It seems that not all modern conchological literature generally accept
>Jung's revisionary placement of Terebellum terebellum in Seraphidae? In many
>cases the Terebellum is still grouped with Strombidae. Is it that Jung's
>paper is not well known, or is this revision considered controversial and
>rejected by some?
> >
> > Rich
> > worldwideconchology.com
> >
>Indeed Rich,
>
>Jungs paper was completely overlooked by e.g. Kreipl et al. (Conchological
>Iconography). I understand that in most literature dealing with fossil
>species Jungs revision is accepted (by most).
>Recently Dr. Luiz Ricardo Simone has performed some analysis on
>stromboideans. most surprising in his analysis is that the Xenophoridae are,
>once again, placed in the Stromboidea. This is supported by observations
>made by
>Kiel, Steffen & Marķa del Carmen Perrilliat, 2001. New Gastropods from the
>Maastrichtian of the Mexcala formation in guerrero, southern Mexico. Part 1:
>Stromboidea. N.Jb. Geol. Paläont. Abh. 222(3): 407-426.
>on the protoconchs.
>Anyway, within the cladogram presented by Dr. Simone the Struthiolariidae
>appear to be the most "primitive", aporrhaids are more advanced, xenophorids
>are more advanced, then Terebellum followed by the strombid genus Canarium.
>Unfortunately, Tibia-like species and Varicospira are omitted, but the
>number of differences between Terebellum at one hand, and the more advanced
>Strombidae (although they share a number of characters that sets them apart
>from Xenophoridae) makes the recognition of Seraphidae at least plausible.
>In my private collection I have separated them as distinct families.
>
>Gijs
|
