> This was known to Harry and I. We have consistently referred to the species
> as "Scalaria."  My explanation of this to Harry some time ago was:
> <As for Carpenter's description, it is one of those "funny" cases where the
> heading of the description is >"Opalia borealis Gld." but ahead of that
> description is a discussion of the Subgenus Opalia. Among >others, Dall and
> Sacco were noted for this confusing manner of citation.  See discussion in
> the >Cancellarioidea Catalogue.  Because of this, the original genus is
> Scalaria: Scalaria (Opalia) borealis >Carpenter, ex Gould.

Yes, I assumed you both had good reason to list it as Scalaria.  I
particularly recall Kellum's 1926 USGS Prof Paper on North Carolina
fossils as being rather thorough in making it look like he considered
the names genera but actually designating them as subgenera; he also
was using very broad genus concepts.

--
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"

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