Eduardo Moreira wrote:
>
> Hi to all Conch-Lers,
>
> What is the correct:
>
> Conus eburneus polyglotta  Weinkauff, 1874      or
> Conus polyglotta  Weinkauff, 1874               ????
 
 
Eduardo,
 
I did not see a bunch of answers pop up so you can have the pure hobbyist
(which is to say very opinionated, rank amateur) answer.  You might as
well make up your own mind on how to classify polyglotta as it will be
some time before the experts ever really settle down on subspecies and
forms.  You will have "lumpers' ("let's get rid of all of those
subspecies, they are just forms and variations") and "splitters" ("we
need to divide this guy into a new subspecies because it has this color
pattern difference").
 
If you look at some of the material offered on the COA web site you will
find an excellent article by Dr. Gary Rosenberg named, "Lumping and
Splitting."  This is an easy to read and understand overview of this
entire issue.  By the way, Dr Rosenberg states there is a test (I can't
remember the name offhand) that, like a DNA test can pretty much settle
this question for any two shells.  But it is not cheap and so we will
continue to wonder which book is correct - the one with Conus eburneus
polyglotta or the one with Conus polyglotta.  Take your pick.
 
I personally believe that while the cones are not near as bad as the
cowries - they are still a bit over-named.  I list my polyglotta as a
subspecies and I would not be a bit surprised if someday we find it like
many subspecies, is a form.
 
I hope this was some help.  The opinion of the man on the street (or the
shell collector at the computer) is worth about what it costs.
 
Good luck,
 
Tom Eichhorst in New Mexico