Martin E. Tremor, Jr. wrote:
 
> 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?
>
 
Hello!
 
Hi,
 
Guess the procedures for naming critters and plants is a common ill;
 
" In other sciences the work of incompetents is merely ignored;
in taxonomy, because of priority, it is preserved."
       - C. Michener
 
Another neat comment on law of priority, legality and pedantry of nomenclature;
 
"... this has deflected taxonomists from biological research
into bibliographic archeology."
       - E. Mayr
 
--
Later,
 
Emilio Jorge Power
 
Please visit;
"The Liguus Home Page"
http://pw1.netcom.com/~ejpower/lighompage.html