I would say it is a sub-species (or at least a form). If you have both in
hands you would agree with me. see both:

tenuivaricosus
http://www.femorale.com.br/shellphotos/detail.asp?photo=745.jpg

tenuivaricosus carioca
http://www.femorale.com.br/shellphotos/detail.asp?photo=21159.jpg

By the way, C.t.carioca is found only in southern Brazil, while
tenuivaricosus can be found from south to northwest Brazil. (Carioca is the
name of people born in Rio de Janeiro city)

Of course it is one of the shells that need a deeper study to make sure it
does not deserve an "upgrade" to species...

Marcus



>From: Harry Berryman <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Conchologists of America List <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Muricidae
>Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:17:23 -0400
>
>Have a shell labeled Chicoreus tenuivaricosus carioca (Vokes, 1968)
>
>Ponder & Vokes, Recent Murex & Hauatellum, 1988, does not list it.
>Both of Houart's, Chicoreus & Muricidae does not list it either.
>Radwin & D'Attilio does list it under Siratus tenuivaricosus (Dautzenberg,
>1927) but it reads Chicoreus carioca E. H. Vokes, 1968: 39, new name for M.
>calcar Kiener, 1842 (not Sowerby, 1823)
>From this I take it that it would be correct as Chicoreus (Siratus) carioca
>E. H. Vokes, 1968 and not Chicoreus (Siratus) Tenuivaricosus (Dautzenberg,
>1927) ?
>
>If so, is it considered a subspecies or form and then can I go by M.calcar
>Kiener, 1842  for more information?
>
>Thanks ahead,
>
>Harry




MARCUS COLTRO
WWW.FEMORALE.COM.BR
More than 3,000 pictures!
No registration needed!