Since we have this species, as well as C. aquatile, in Jacksonville waters,
we have taken an interest in its taxonomy and nomenclature.

In my microfiche version of pp. 162-3 of volume 7 part 2 (1853? edition; ?
the earliest iteration of this text; no illustration in the companion
atlas) of d'Orbigny [Mollusques. In: Histoire Physique, Politique, et
Naturelle de l’île de Cuba by Ramón de la Sagra. Paris.; dates for
d'Orbigny are apparently not completely fixed] reads: "Cette espèce, bien
distincte du Triton pileare par sa bouche rougeâtre et non marquée de
taches alternes noires et blanches..." meaning (to a tyro like me this
French appears ambiguous and agrammatical): "This species, quite distinct
from Cymatium pileare [Linnaeus] by its reddish aperture and not marked
with alternating black and white blotches..."  Which is to say, C. pileare
has a red aperture and lacks the black blotches between the white parietal
teeth seen in the orange-mouthed C. maritinianum. Furthermore, C. m. is
stockier (less elongate aperture, shorter siphonal canal, relatively
broader outline).  In my experience, W. Atlantic shells are identical to
those collected in the E. Atlantic, but all Atlantic shells can easily be
distinguished from Indo-Pacific specimens.  I think d'Orbigny had it right;
two separate species.

Incidentally, d'Orbigny cited three illustrations for his Triton
martinianum: Lister, 1685-1688, Martini, 1780, and Lamarck, 1822.  I have
looked at the "Martini" figures (actually Chemnitz, J. C. 1780.  Neues
systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet 4: pl. 130 figs. 1248 & 1249), and they
look more like Triton pileare of Linnaeus.  Thus, d'Orbigny honored Martini
with this name, based on the work of Chemnitz, not Martini, and the
illustration in question appears not to be the species we have come to know
by this name!  Despite these slip-ups, d'Orbigny's text is reasonably
clear, and, appropriately, Beu and Kay (1988) established a lectotype
specimen [from d'Orbigny's collection, which had found its way to the
British Museum of Natural History] to supersede the ambiguity of these
three (not-so-definitive) illustrations.

Harry


At 06:18 PM 9/25/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Andrew Vik
>Tampa, Fl., USA
>[log in to unmask]
>
>Paul:
>
>I believe that C. martinianum (Orbigny, 1845) is actually the W.
>Atlantic/Caribbean subspecies of C. pileare (Linne, 1758). Thus, you can
>refer to Caribbean C. pileare as Cymatium pileare martinianum (Orb.,
>1845). C. aquatile (Reeve, 1844) is also a subspecies of C. pileare, but
>I think it is only found in the Indo-W.Pacific region. I have collected
>C. p. martinianum in the Florida Keys and C. p. aquatile in Hawaii, and
>to tell the truth, I don't see a hugh difference between the two. I just
>give them the subspecies names because references on these localities
>tend to use those names. I have C. nicobaricum (Roding, 1798) from S.FL.
>and Hawaii also, and they seem to differ only in size. It is amazing how
>far some of the marine species range.
> Don't be shy Paul. Conchlers love to talk shells.
>
>Andrew.
>
>Paul Kanner wrote:
>
>> Hello to All, I have been a subscriber to the list for about 9 months
>> now. I have contributed or asked questions a couple of times but am
>> alittle shy to enter into discussions. Be that as it may, I have a
>> question. I have a special interest in the Ranellidae but am very
>> confused by the differences between Cymatiums pileare, aquatile and
>> martinianum. I have collected a couple of specimens in Belize that
>> appear to look more like aquatile.  I have also collected a 55mm
>> specimen from the same area that looks like a small pileare. Just what
>> is martinianum? I have Ranellidae & Personidae of the World by Henning
>> & Hemmen but it only serves to confuse me more. Help! Best Wishes to
>> the List Paul KannerLos Angeles, Ca.,USA