Dear Guido,





You are absolutely right that a graphist using photoshop can make a Conus
gloriamaris out of a Guildfordia. But to do this, many steps are necessary:
getting rid of the spines, changing the colour, the pattern, the
microsculpture, elongating the shell, narrowing the aperture, etcetera,
etcetera. Since all these characters are regulated by genes, the number of
steps roughly is an indication of the genetic distance between Conus and
Guildfordia.



The point made by Peter and me is that only one step is necessary to go from
Conus glorioceanus to C. gloriamaris. This strongly suggests that only one
gene (tone that determines allometric growth) is involved in creating the
difference between these two nominal species. This is nothing new. More
often, a single-gene difference has made malacologists to describe new
species and even to introduce new genera. For instance, in 1778, Ignaz von
Born described a new genus and species as Cornu copiae, Cornu copiae is now
known to be a scalaroid freak of the common European land snail "Helix"
aspersum. The loose coiling in Von Born's new species probably is a rare
genetic anomaly (quite like the appearance of sinistral specimens in
normally dextral species).



Von Born, by the way, is not the only malacologist fooled by an unusual
shell specimen. For instance, the highly esteemed malacologist Henry
Pilsbry, who has seen and described more species than you and I can dream
of, described the hardly known veliger-stage of a cymatiid as a new species
and genus in Rissoidae. Hans Kuiper, arguably the expert in Sphaeriidae once
described an ostracod shell as a new sphaerid. More recently, two renowned
experts in Turridae and Terebridae, respectively, each described a
columbellid as a turrid and a terebrid. I do not want to sound patronizing,
but be careful with playing the "I am the expert" card. Experts do make
errors. Perhaps even more than others who lack the expert's confidence.




Mentioning Cornu copiae, I hear that C. glorioceanus is not only a new
species, but that it also belongs to a different genus (I have not seen its
description yet). I hope this not a new, monotypic genus because that would
be entirely tautological. Thus let's suppose that C. glorioceanus is a new
member of an existing genus different from the one that contains C.
gloriamaris. For instance from a group of flat-topped vermivore cone
species. Since these are much less poisonous that piscivore cones there
could be a bonus in looking as much as necessary like a more dangerous cone.
This is a common phenomenon called Batesian mimicry: selective pressure will
push the pattern to the stage in which the resemblance is good enough to
fool predators. However, the problem with C. glorioceanus is that the colour
and the pattern are just too good to be true. The tent-pattern is exactly
the same in both. Even the very typical lighter bands on the anterior part
of the last whorl are identical. This begs for an explanation. Also, the
question rises: if the colour and colour pattern in C. glorioceanus are the
result of convergence, then where and what is its possible ancestor or
sister species? Why has your team that has seen more than a million cone
shells never seen a shell that looks like C. glorioceanus but with less of a
gloriamaris-like colour-pattern?



In light of the evidence presented up to now the by far more parsimonious
answer to the question: "what is C. glorioceanus?" is "C. glorioceanus is a
one-gene anomaly of C. gloriamaris, not a distantly related species that by
natural selection has become a C. gloriamaris look-alike".



Marien


> Dear Peter,
>
> I think this is a little crazy what you claim there. My graphists will
> make you a Conus gloriamaris out of a Guildifordia yoka easily. Or
> from a tiger cowry. This does not mean they are the same species. The
> more your job is easy as the color pattern of C. glorioceanus is
> almost the same as the C. gloriamaris. Please read more on experts in
> informatics who make now shells out of nothing.
> Myself, Sheila Tagaro and Gabriella Raybaudi have seen without
> exageration more than a million Conus alltogether and it is our daily
> job. Together we have over 50 years experience in this field, and
> Gabriella consacrated 12 years of her life full time, traveling the
> world, discussing and sudying things only in this field. I doubt, your
> photoshop gone match that.
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------