Sorry host address not found.
 
Mail Delivery Subsystem wrote:
 
> The original message was received at Sat, 13 Jun 1998 14:09:52 -0400 (EDT)
> from [209.3.76.30]
>
>    ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
> <[log in to unmask]>
>
>    ----- Transcript of session follows -----
> 550 <[log in to unmask]>... Host unknown (Name server: humboldtl.com: host not found)
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reporting-MTA: dns; iconmail.bellatlantic.net
> Arrival-Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 14:09:52 -0400 (EDT)
>
> Final-Recipient: RFC822; [log in to unmask]
> Action: failed
> Status: 5.1.2
> Remote-MTA: DNS; humboldtl.com
> Last-Attempt-Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 14:13:03 -0400 (EDT)
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Xenophoras
> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 14:11:07 -0400
> From: HARRY BERRYMAN <[log in to unmask]>
> Organization: bais
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Dan & Hiromi;
> Xen. can only collect the objects that are available. Remember you
> fossils are 65 plus million years old, the attachments more than likly
> broke off. I have been collecting Xen. for 15/20 years and have all but
> 3, X. f. ludbrookae, X. n. kermadecensis, X. fulton and fossil X. tatei
> Harris. I am sending an "OUTLINE" of the talk I give. Because of my
> beliefs, 3 local Malacologist have talked me into a study "Why do Xen.
> do what they do". If you are interested I can send you a copy as I up
> date it. Asking for damaged Xen. shells is to determine predators.
> God Bless
> Harry
>
>                                                           Xenophoridae
>
>            From the beginning, man's ideas about Xenophora's were
> nothing but utter confusion. The Devonian Period, (405 million years
> ago) is the first reference made of Gastropods with Xenophora like
> habits.........but that's about it. The first real consideration comes
> from the Jurassic Period, (180 million years ago).............but it
> seems that the specimens were misplaced, so true documentation can not
> be confirmed. Finely from the Cretaceous Period, (135 million years ago)
> under heavy controversy, Turbo Conchyliophora Born, 1780 is accepted as
> the type species of  Xenophora
> .............Don't take a sigh of relief yet! For the next 150 years,
> the Xenophora was suggested to be put in to 3 to 4 families and about 9
> genesis. Then in 1964, they decided to make a fresh start and put it by
> it-self. So to-day we have;
>
>                      Superfamily......................Xenophoracea
>                      Family..............................Xenophoridae
>                      Genus...............................Xenophora
> Fischer von Waldheim. 1807
>                      Subgenera........................Stellaria (Schmidt
> MS) Moeller, 1832
>                                                               Onustus
> Swainson, 1840
>
>           Still it was puzzling........Xenophora's are classified just
> as much if not more by the shell and attachments as they are by anatomy.
> At least they never change the common name....... that's still " The
> Carrier Shell".
>            To add insult to injury.......just because Linnaeus devised
> our classification system, some writings have proclaimed him as the
> first shell collector.........Lets set the record straight, the
> Xenophora is the first and original shell collector...........after all
> they have been collecting for about 300 million years before man was
> even around.
>           The word Xenophora comes from Greek meaning "Bearer of
> Foreigners" and  was proposed in 1807 by a Russian.........Fischer von
> Waldheim. A few people have tried to put order to the Xenophora's, but
> it was not until 1983 that W.F. Ponder of Australia brought accepted
> order to the Xenophora. The greatest problem I've found is Ponder's book
> is out of print and really only was made for museums. So literature of
> more then a few lines was just about impossible to come by. Dr. Robert
> Robertson of Bahaman Island fame has been a great help in this area,
> obtaining material that would be difficult for me to come by.
>
>            With todays facilities, a young Malacologist is in dire need
> to pursue  Xenophora's where Ponder left off. It would be nice to know
> why there are three forms of  Xenophora's, ..........why does Caribaea
> Petit remove the attachments,.............be able to document
> reproduction and not an educated guess,...............are any Hybrids?
> The list of questions go on and in reality   ......... .......we don't
> know that much about the Xenophora.
>
>                                                  General Description:
>
> a low conical shell with a broad base,
> usually dull,
> coarsely ornamented and fragile,
> found on most continental shelves and slopes of most Tropical and
> Temperate regions,
> operculum is paper thin and horny,
> a few species are found in shallow water, but most are found by
> dredging.
>
>           There are 2 dozen plus species with two just reappearing to
> the collector.........
> S. profunda Ponder, 1983 from Somalia, and S. lamberti Souverbie, 1871,
> that was thought to be extinct and a new one, X. tulesrensis Stewart &
> Kosuge, 1993  from Madagascar. The family appears to be remarkably
> uniform in Habits, Shell form, Anatomy, Radula and Body Form. Doesn't
> sound very appealing.........No wonder not many collectors are
> interested.
>
>           Now for some facts that I hope will get you excited and maybe
> take a closer look at the Xenophora for your next family to start to
> collect.
>
>            It was December 1983 while visiting a friend, I noticed 6
> blobs by the kitchen sink, I asked him what they were and went home with
> our first Xenophora. In September 1984 while checking out a new store in
> Cape Hatteras, we found a Japonica and it was only  $1.00........big
> deal ............we now had 2 carrier shells. In 1985, I discovered the
> fascinating world of the Xenophora, my Lambis took a back seat and my
> fellow peers have ribbed me ever since
>
> Those collecting Shells are sometimes called Conchologists.
> Those collecting Rocks are sometimes called Mineralogists.
> Those completely covering the shells with attachments are sometimes
> called Gluttons.
>
>           Most species attach small bits of stones, coral or tiny bits
> of sand to the early whorls, while in its young stage. Each species has
> it's own degree to which it will collect and attach objects. Its
> remarkable that all foreign objects seem to be carefully chosen and
> precisely cemented with pain staking precision. The shells collected are
> only dead shells and all bivalves are attached inner side up. Gastropods
> usually have their aperture pointing up. Ocean dwellers such as coral,
> sponge  and worm cases grow naturally on the attachments in complete
> harmony with its host.............I said supposedly...........here is a
> picture of a Terebra attached not only horizontally but
> alive.................Xenophora's are very active and move quickly in a
> Strombus like or " One leg Stomp" fashion but different in that the
> Strombus pushes with its foot, while the Xenophora pulls with its foot.
> The foot, very small, only 2 cm, is so strong, a Xenophora has been
> observed lifting not only itself to a height equal to it's own shell,
> but in the process had 3 other Xenophora's  on top of it. The powerful
> foot also allows the Xenophora to be pulled forward half its shell
> diameter. The "Stomp" seems to be made up in a 5 or 6 step motion.
>           The mystery of gluing on the attachments was solved in the
> late 60's, when Paul Shank of Florida, observed a Conchyliophora he had
> in an aquarium . After selecting the object, taking up to 1 1/2 hours to
> rotate, position and clean both the object and it's shell before
> cementing it. Maneuvering and positioning  were done with it's foot,
> snout and tentacle bases, When the job is finished, the Xenophora
> remains motionless for up to 10 hours, with the exception of occasional
> rocking, what seems like checking the holding power.
>           The medical profession has tried to duplicate the cement, but
> to no avail, ..........the glue seems all right ,but the contaminants
> are hard to duplicate.........If they could, a compound fracture could
> be healed over night.............no more unruly casts.
>           The December 1988 issue of the C.O.A. had a picture of a
> carrier with 5 rare Volutes in gem condition. In1989 they showed one
> with a nice specimen of a fossil sharks tooth. You better believe I go
> over every one we have and a couple of times at that.............it was
> pointed out to me at the Philadelphia Show , we had an uncommon Miter on
> one shell and a Turridae that is only found on Xenophora's on another.
>           At first it was only natural to think the attachments were for
> camouflage............a closer investigation shows all 3 groups live
> together at both visible depths as well as the deep dark depths of the
> oceans.............so is camouflage necessary? Unlike the look-a-like
> tops, the aperture of the Xenophora is under the dome like
> shell...........not out the side.........so rather then having its face
> shoved in to the mud...........the Xenophora attaches objects, grows
> spines of undulating edges to hold the shell above the
> bottom............now it can graze on algae............peek out for
> greener pastures or look for the next colossal object to attach, or just
> rest by pulling back into its shell. Obviously the 2 subgenera, growing
> spines and undulating edges with little or no attachments does not fit
> very well as camouflage. While a birds eye view of some Xenophora's
> would fit, what about X. peroniana attaching in rows (apex to edge), X.
> crispa objects are evenly and well spaced and the X. granulosa objects
> are attached evenly only on the peripheral edge,........does this sound
> like camouflage to you? To reinforce this conclusion, the degree of
> precision and most of all the angle the object is attached has no
> bearing on camouflage, but does for the height needed to live the life
> of a Xenophora.
>           The Stellaria solaris (Linnaeus, 1764) from the Philippines
> was known as early as 1795, but was considered rare for 200 years. After
> WW II, deep water trawlers started to net them in increasing numbers.
> It's one of the laziest of all carrier shells, instead of collecting, it
> grows spines. The shell itself is thin and fragile,.............owning
> one with all its spikes intact is rare.
>           Longleyi of the Caribbean is the largest of all Xenophoras
>           Caribaea Petit attaches objects, then removes
> them..........why..........unanswered.
>           From the Pacific, the Pallidula and Mexico's Robusta are
> virtual pigs, to the point that the shell at times is hardly
> visible.............and yes the Atlantic's Conchyliophora and the
> Pacific's Pallidula are kissing cousins.
>           For years the Japonic was thought to be a Dwarf Pallidula, but
> of course its a species of its own.
>
>           So you would like to have a world wide collection but not
> enough room? What better way to have that dream than with the
> Xenophora...........Although carrier shells are not highly collected,
> they are easily available through most dealers at reasonable
> prices..........Next time you are looking at shells, remember the nut
> and for my sake, take another look at the blob.............You just
> might get hooked too!