Content-Type: |
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:33:36 -0400 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Travis,
I believe that Tom Waller at the Smithsonian synonomized G. pallium and
speciosa. Tom is a specialist in the Pectinidae so before one dismisses
his conclusion one would do well to read the paper in which he made this
reassignment. I do not have the reference with me but could provide it for
anyone who would like the citation.
Charlie
******************************************************************************
Charlie Sturm, Jr
Research Associate - Section of Invertebrate Zoology
Carnegie Museum of Natural History
Assistant Professor - Family Medicine
[log in to unmask]
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Travis Payne wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> I'd like a good answer to that, too. Pectens can be as confusing as anything,
> and they are constantly getting tossed from one genus to another. Are
> Annachlamys, Belchlamys, Coralichlamys Scaeochlamys, and others, considered
> full genera, or are they subgenera of Chlamys? I even heard that someone
> suggested Gloripallium pallium and G. speciosum were one in the same. Seems
> ludicrous to me, if it is true.
>
> Travis
>
|
|
|