let's take this apart a bit so we can understand what we have here . 1st ,
C. connectens could not belong to the daucus complex, wrong range or
province. 2nd,,  C. connectens  is in the sub-genus vituliconus , Daucus ,
dauciconus, so now that we have that straightened out  let's move on to the
group it does belong to , it shares patterning and form with planorbis,
vitulinus, striatellus, all have classic white banding , one at the shoulder
, second at the mid-body whorl and light tan to dark brown body color. all
are obconic and differ from a typical conical form by having carinate
shoulders with tapering sides , some are even pustulated, most have raised
concentric lines on the main body whorl.  C. connectens falls between them
and as for all the data i found it was quite an arguement as to it's
validity .as for the author, A. Adams 1854 is credited in three of the books
i use ,  but you're right that rockel would not recognise the species, so to
futher complicate but give the poor namelesss thing a name i would go with
the following, CONUS VITULINUS CONNECTENS , A.Adams 1854.
Mark & Peta  Bethke
Hollywood, Florida
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin E. Tremor, Jr. <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, November 06, 1998 9:56 PM
Subject: Calling all Cone experts!!!
 
 
>I recently acquired a cone specimen identified as Conus connectens A.
Adams,
>1855 from the Philippines. I first went to the  MANUAL OF THE LIVING
CONIDAE
>by Rockel, Korn and Kohn. Guess what? Conus connectens wasn't even listed
in
>the index, not even as a synonym. I then referred to R. Tucker Abbott's
>COMPENDIUM OF SEA SHELLS and found the species listed there with Conus
>pulchellus, Swainson, 1822 given as a cinnamon. Going back to Rockel, Korn
and
>Kohn's work I find Conus pulchellus listed with Conus circumactus, Iredale,
>1929 given as the valid name for this species.
>
>When looking up Conus circumactus, I find the following "Estival & von
Cosel
>(1986) considered Conus connectens A. Adams, 1855 to be an earlier name for
C.
>circumactus. Coomans et. al. (1985a) considered the type specimen of C.
>connectens indeterminable, but Rockel (1988b) concluded that it is a
specimen
>of C. daucus Hwass from the W. Atlantic. In any case it seems  not to be an
>earlier name for C. circumactus."
>
>I am confused!!  What ever am I to call this dear little cone?
>
>Martin Tremor
>St. Petersburg, FL
>U.S.A.
>