Martin,
 
Jerry Walls published his book Cone Shells in 1977.  He used the name
Conus connectens for the shell generally known as C. circumactus.  The
change gradually became accepted until Dr. Roeckel published an article
in Hawaiian Shell News in 1988. Since 1988, some have accepted Dr.
Roeckel's change and some have stuck with the name used by Walls.
 
In Hawaiian Shell News (H.S.N.), Vol XXXVI, No. 3, March 1988, New Series
339 the cover article is titled "On the identity of Conus connectens A.
Adams, 1855".  This article explains Dr. Roeckel's reasons for
classifying the holotype of Conus connectens A. Adams, 1855 as an unusual
form of Conus daucus Hwass in Brugiere, 1792.  The detail of his
reasoning is not evident in the Manual of the Living Conidae - the text
refers you to "Roeckel (1988b)".  This means you have to got to the
bibliography of the book and look up the second paper he published in
1988.
 
On page 4 of the H.S.N. issue he shows a photo of the holotype of C.
connectens next to a photo of a non-typical C. daucus in his collection.
Since it is not unusual to find that shells in very old collections have
been assigned to the wrong locality, it is not that far-fetched to
suppose that a Conus daucus got collected in the Atlantic and was later
considered to be a shell from the Indo-Pacific.  Look at Conus aurantius
and Conus delessertii.  Both actually come from the Atlantic, but were
thought to come from the other side of the world by general consensus for
over a hundred years.
 
If C. connectens is a synonym of C. daucus, the earliest name that
applies to the species from the Indo-Pacific is Conus circumactus
Iredale, 1929.  Other contenders have all been shown to be synonyms of
other taxa.  In my opinion, Dr. Roeckel makes a good case and based his
work on type material. So, I use the name Conus circumactus in labelling
shells from the Philippines offered as C. connectens.
 
Hope this information helps...
 
Bill Fenzan
Norfolk, Virgina, USA
 
[log in to unmask]