Harry and Conch'L members,
I'm sorry to post this private email on Conch-L, but I've had emails to
Harry bounced back twice during the past 24 hours, [log in to unmask] This
thread is shell related though, dealing with a dubious Buccinid species.
Rich
Original Message:
-----------------
From: [log in to unmask]
Date: 6 Aug 2002 09:16:25 -0000
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: failure notice
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mail2.neureal.com.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<[log in to unmask]>:
Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host,
it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6)
--- Below this line is a copy of the message.
X-Sender: [log in to unmask]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 01:14:00 -0400
To: "Harry G. Lee" <[log in to unmask]>
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: a buccinid of yours
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 11249669==_.ALT"
Harry,
I agree. Undoubtedly, Alison Kay's illustrated specimen, the Compendium
shell, your shell, and mine are all the same. Whether these shells conform
with the correct description for Engina farinosa is another
story. Hawaiian Marine Shells contains the only description for Engina
farinosa that seems to be a good match for the shells at hand. What say ye?
Rich
At 07:36 AM 7/25/2002, you wrote:
>Dear Richie,
>
>This is a rather crummy scan of my 17.5 mm. specimen from "6-8 m., on dead
>coral, Fernao Veloso Bay Mozambique." I received it from Atlantic on
7/15/01.
>
>It seems a little dumpier than your shell and that in the Compendium, but
>it lacks the early whorls. I think these are all one species. Do you??
>
>Harry
>
>At 12:08 AM 7/22/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>>Harry,
>>The Engina species illustrated in my talk is identified as E. farinosa
>>(Gould, 1860) [see Cernohorsky, 1978, pg. 75]. Though his illustration
>>on plate 22 does not mimic the shell exactly
>>http://www.worldwideconchology.com/Engina_farinosa.jpg , his written
>>description of a more squat species than E. egregia falls into line with
>>the look of my shells. The best and most closely related illustration is
>>in Kay, 1979 Hawaiian Marine Shells, Figure 92, D. Interestingly, these
>>specimens were collected by Scott Johnson over a dozen years ago, and
>>identified by Alison Kay. I would be interested to know more about your
>>findings and investigations of this species. Please include me in your
>>future correspondence. Thanks and take care.
>>Regards,
>>Rich
>>
>>At 01:49 PM 7/20/2002, you wrote:
>>>Dear Richie,
>>>
>>>Great talk at COA 2002. Hope the other arenas of activity were equally
>>>well-enjoyed by you and those around you.
>>>
>>>In your slide presentation I saw an Engina, the name and author of which
>>>I wrote down and promptly lost. It seemed to be the un-named species
>>>discussed below (and about the anonymity of which I was a quite likely
>>>incorrect). It is figured in Abbott and Dance's Compendium on page 167
>>>in the left lower corner.
>>>
>>>Can you email me this info??
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Harry
>>>
>>>Reference:
>>>Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 18:59:01 -0500
>>>Reply-To: Conchologists of America List <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Sender: Conchologists of America List <[log in to unmask]>
>>>From: "Harry G. Lee" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>
>>>Dear Paul,
>>>
>>>You are correct. The Compendium species is likely un-named. The
>>>lectotype of N. pusilla (a pair of figures in Chemnitz, 1780 Conchylien
>>>Cabinet vol. 4) forms the basis for Cernohorsky's diagnosis of that
>>>taxon, which is somewhat variable and includes Patty's form, as Henk
>>>indicated.
>>>
>>>I have a shell (shallow water, Mozambique) essentially identical to the
>>>Compendium specimen; this taxon appears to be rather consistent
>>>conchologically.
>>>
>>>Harry
>>>
>>>At 12:20 AM 2/2/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>>>>I believe the Nassaria on Patty's page is Nassaria pusilla (Roding,
>>>>1798). The pictures in the Compendium are rather confusing. The shell
>>>>shown as N. pusilla does not appear to be this species, in my opinion.
>>>>Anyone else have input on this?
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>Paul M.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
|
