Got to get into this discussion a little late, but I also do not believe that
pallium and speciosa are the same species. There are many differences. I came
up with about 5, one of the most important is the shape of the scales.  Also
no one is infallible, professional or extra academic. I have the highest
regard for Dr. Waller's work, but I also can tell you of several instances
where later data refuted his first opinion. One thing good about his work,
compared to some other's, is that he will readily admit to errors if they are
positively pointed out.. I hope someone does some DNA testing on these two
species someday soon.
  Travis, Dr. Waller did not split the Nodipectens. We have to say that Conrad
in one instance --split--them, when he named fragosus in 1849. I know I
pointed this out before, but the important paper on Nodipectens is the paper
by Judith Terry Smith. She made a good case for the division of the species as
had been already published elsewhere. .
  I am not familiar with Andy's fossil species, so I can't comment on where it
belongs, but for all fossil Pectinids, I would refer him to Tom.
  I can't remember the exact wording of your query, Travis, but I prefer the
generic divisions. It gives one an immediate sense of what the shell may look
like. Zygochlamys, for instance, you would know immediately that it is a
smoothish, lop sided, low ribbed shell. Veprichlamys you would know it has
spiky ribs, elongate-lop-sided etc.
  Many  authors are generally too lazy to put the correct genera and lump
everything in Chlamys, Pecten and Aequipecten.
       Bye for now,
              Carole M