I am intrigued by Mr. Mayhew's last posting about this Conus as he states
that "clarkei [sic] Rehder & Abbott can most probably be considered a
readily identifiable form of armiger Crosse" and that he would like to see a
few more "verified" photos before making his final decision as to validity.

May I inquire as to whose named photos are to be considered "verified", and
"verified" as to what? Identification?

The one absolutely "verified" photo of Conus clarki is the illustration of
the type in the original description which Mr. Mayhew has obviously not
consulted or he would have spelled the name correctly (It was named for
Austin Clark, an echinoid specialist at the USNM).

Coomans et al. (1951) stated that the type specimen of Conus crenulatus
Kiener (which remained the type specimen when the replacement name Conus
armiger was proposed) could not be located. The type locality was designated
as "the coast of Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico."  Conus clarki R. & A. was
described from off the coast of Louisiana.  Kiener's figure is reproduced by
Coomans et al. together with a specimen from off Pensacola, Florida.
Coomans et al. were not hesitant about placing C. clarki in the synonymy of
C. armiger.

dick petit

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