Peggy,

I believe the names should be:

Conus anabathrum Crosse, 1865
Conus anabathrum floridensis Sowerby III, 1870
Conus anabathrum burryae Clench, 1942
Conus anabathrum tranthami Petuch, 1995

Note that the latin words, Conus and the species name, should be in italics.
This is just a text message, so I can't format.

Some treat C. anabathrum burryae as a separate species (e.g. Conus burryae
Clench, 1942).  I believe this is not allowed since the taxon was originally
proposed as a subspecies.  For names originally proposed as subspecies, the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature needs to be petitioned
to elevate the taxon in rank to a species.  To my knowledge, this has not
been done.  Based on material I have seen, there appears to be intergrades
between "classic" C. anabathrum burryae and C. anabathrum within populations
collected in the Florida Keys, so I feel there is only one, variable species
involved.

Hope this helps.  Merry Christmas.

Bill Fenzan
Norfolk, Virginia


Some others
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peggy Williams" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 7:14 PM
Subject: anabathrum


> I knew that it was changed to anabathrum; the question is: Is Conus
> floridanus burryae (and
> tranthami and floridensis) now Conus anabathrus burryae? or would it
> now be just Conus burryae?
>
> Peggy
>
>            Peggy Williams: shell collecting trips
>           Visit my website: www.Shelltrips.com
>                                PO Box 575
>                         Tallevast FL 34270
>                            (941) 355-2291
>                    [log in to unmask]
>