Paul Callomon wrote in response to this Conchler (whose name I have lost
track of; my apologies):
> I was very conformable calling all
> in the family terebra until I read the "Living Terebras of the World"
> and found they (authors Bratcher & Cernoohorsky) break the family into
> the genera: Terebra, Duplicaria, Hastula (with subgenus Impages), and
> Terenolla.  They also list 41 or so previous genus and subgenus name
> applied to this family.
Katsura Oyama published several papers on the Terebras; the most accessible
is in Venus (1961 : vol. 21 (2) : 176-189). I saw him give a talk on the
family some years back, in which he divided them into genera based on the
anatomy of the foregut and mouth. He raised dozens of genera for the
Terebridae during his career, including Brevimyurella, Cinguloterebra,
Clathroterebra, Decorihastula, Granuliterebra, Hastulopsis, Laeviacus and
Pristiterebra. Anyone for whom Bratcher and Cernohorsky is not complicated
enough should investigate Oyama's work. Personally, I prefer B&C.
 
This is a good illustration of the usefulness of subgenera. If a taxonomist
splits a big genus into dozens of subgenera on the basis of differences
that cannot be seen without dissection of a live-collected specimen, then
the shell collector can still use the old generic name (Terebra this,
Terebra that) and the specialist is free to use the subgenera (Terebra
(Subterebra) this, Terebra (Paraterebra) that). If the taxonomist insists
on splitting the genus into dozens of genera, however, the shell collector
(or even the specialist who is in a hurry or is holding a dead shell) is
left with in very difficult situation.
 
By the way, thanks to Paul Monfils, Ross Mayhew and others for interesting
notes on how it feels to be a dealer. I'd like to read more about it. It's
a different perspective.
 
Andrew K. Rindsberg
Geological Survey of Alabama