Hi, Marlo!

The shape of the siphonal canal also appears different in the two specimens shown.  The one on the left has a canal that angles toward the left, and is more tapered and somewhat shorter that the one on the right that appears more perpendicular and longer, with the anterior portion of the outer lip being more sinuous.  Also,the apertural striae, although rather weak, appear more pronounced in the specimen on the right.

Maybe those, and other, differences may be part of the range of variation of F. tulipa, or there may be some genetic differences which we have not yet discovered.  I'm a lumper and prefer to err on the side of caution.  So, if I were identifying both those specimens, I would regard them both as specimens of F. tulipa until genetic studies either combined or separated them.

Best regards,
Ron Noseworthy

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 12/25/15, Marlo Krisberg <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [CONCH-L] Fasciolaria tulipa v. hollisteri
 To: [log in to unmask]
 Received: Friday, December 25, 2015, 3:51 AM
 
 #yiv7310089698
 #yiv7310089698 --
  
  _filtered #yiv7310089698 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2
 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
  _filtered #yiv7310089698 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2
 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
  _filtered #yiv7310089698 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15
 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
  _filtered #yiv7310089698 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11
 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
  _filtered #yiv7310089698 {font-family:Pristina;panose-1:3 6
 4 2 4 4 6 8 2 4;}
  _filtered #yiv7310089698 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11
 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
 #yiv7310089698  
 #yiv7310089698 p.yiv7310089698MsoNormal, #yiv7310089698
 li.yiv7310089698MsoNormal, #yiv7310089698
 div.yiv7310089698MsoNormal
 	{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}
 #yiv7310089698 a:link, #yiv7310089698
 span.yiv7310089698MsoHyperlink
 	{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
 #yiv7310089698 a:visited, #yiv7310089698
 span.yiv7310089698MsoHyperlinkFollowed
 	{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}
 #yiv7310089698 p.yiv7310089698MsoAcetate, #yiv7310089698
 li.yiv7310089698MsoAcetate, #yiv7310089698
 div.yiv7310089698MsoAcetate
 	{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}
 #yiv7310089698 span.yiv7310089698EmailStyle17
 	{color:#1F497D;}
 #yiv7310089698 span.yiv7310089698BalloonTextChar
 	{}
 #yiv7310089698 span.yiv7310089698EmailStyle20
 	{color:#1F497D;}
 #yiv7310089698 span.yiv7310089698apple-converted-space
 	{}
 #yiv7310089698 .yiv7310089698MsoChpDefault
 	{font-size:10.0pt;}
  _filtered #yiv7310089698 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
 #yiv7310089698 div.yiv7310089698WordSection1
 	{}
 #yiv7310089698 MY question is
 for all those who use the name F. hollisteri
 Weisbord, 1962 or F. tulipa hollisteri.  I can
 accept the possibility of an allopatric (occurring in
 different geographic areas or in isolation) form of
 F. tulipa that could be consistent with Weisbord’s distinctive characters for F.
 hollisteri (“being stouter and in having canaliculate
 rather than tight sutures”) distinguishing it from F.
 tulipa.  But, can anyone provide evidence that the
 specimens offered as F. hollisteri are from isolated
 populations that consistently conform to these two
 distinguishing characters.  My analysis of my Florida
 specimens of F. tulipa discloses numerous specimens
 essentially identical to Weisbord’s description (and many
 specimens offered as F. hollisteri), including the
 two distinguishing characters.
  I would especially like to hear from Collectors
 with Florida specimens of F. tulipa with canaliculate
 sutures take among living populations that also displayed
 tight sutures.  
  F
 hollisteri is F. tulipa
  MarloFrom:CONCH-L - John Timmerman
 Sent: December 24, 2015 
 
 Allen,  The Eastern North American Busycon
 complex, its many described and often changing thoughts (and
 sometimes contentious debates) on species are a fine example
 strongly supporting your thesis in my humble opinion.
   John Timmerman  From: Conch-L - Allen Aigen
 Sent:
 December 20, 2015 
 
 I have been
 considering the use of subspecies names. They tend to be
 overused and some  taxonomists will not use them.  Looking
 at dealer's lists however,  they are popular, but the
 more names, the more sales! If a population is distinct
 enough to be a subspecies, why not make it a species or just
 a variant?   The worse offender for misuse is having
 'subspecies' living together in the same environment
 without significant interbreeding.  F.
 hollisteri and F.
 tulipa are apparently allopatric, but getting specimens
 from southern Panama has not proven easy.  From what I
 remember, two related species that are basically allopatric
 but meet a a line have a very narrow band of crossbreeding,
 as the crossbreeds are not as viable and do not interbreed
 well with either population (this may depend on what
 characteristics separates the species...)  Subspecies
 should interbreed readily (assuming they meet) with a very
 wide band of indistinction.  Also subspecies have evolved
 from an earlier species, so lacking a good idea of the
 family tree in a good time frame can make for poor usage.
  Like calling Cinctura
 hunteria 'C. lilium hunteria' because they are
 apparently so similar and the lilium name
 was described first.  However they probably are closer to
 being cousins than subspecies or sister species, based on
 the facts that: 1.) they are both found living together in
 the Gulf (sympatric), and C.
 lilium was probably evolved directly from C.
 apicina while C.
 hunteria was derived from C.
 evergladesensis which was evolved from C.
 apicina.  But we do not have good genealogies for most
 species, so subspecies are generally named from the most
 common related species, which is also usually the oldest
 name.      Fasciolaria
 tulipa, and to a lesser extent
 the related Cinctura species, are
 generalists with a wide diet and environmental tolerance and
 a rather variable phenotype, so they can adapt to a new
  (but not radically different) environment without needing
 to evolve to fit.  Where they do make a fairly distinctive
 colony, they still generally include other, less common
 forms.  F. tulipa inhabits
 Caribbean islands separated by water deeper than they
 normally live (even during lower sea levels of glacial
 periods.)  Thus they do tend to have more or less
 distinctive colonies, but probably would readily interbreed
 if they got together as the genotype for the species would
 probably cover all of them in an irregular overlapping
 pattern.  The trouble is setting limits for the species
 (which is essentially a human tendency to pigeonhole an
 irregular continuum.)  This is especially difficult when
 dealing with fossil species, but we do not have the needed
 biochemical (eg DNA) data even for the living species to
 help draw lines.    I would
 appreciate any feedback!
  Allen
 Aigen  
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 [log in to unmask]
 - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
 To leave this list, click on the following web link:
 http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
 Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
 click leave the list.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------