Content-type: |
text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:09:19 +1200 |
In-Reply-To: |
<000701c308d6$8e909750$49f73ad0@xennut1> |
MIME-version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>Enough Xenophora, not corrected would mislead some people. As of 1999,
>Kreipl & Alf redefined the family as follows;
>
>Genus Xenophora 13 species
> 2 subspecies
> 1 subgenus
>
>Genus Stellaria 5 species
> 1 subspecies
>
>Genus Onustus 4 species
>
>Total 26 species.
>Dr. Simone in Brazil stated he was moving Xenophora to the Superfamily
>Stromboidea, put I have no confirmation as of yet.
>Enough is not enough until it is correct!
>
>Harry Berryman
>Xenophora Nut
I would say, at least on conchological grounds (dunno about DNA or
anatomy) that generic distinction of Stellaria is unjustified; the
shells just are not that different. Onustus has a basic difference,
in that the keel is basally lined by inductura, and so has a
different structure.
--
Regards
Andrew
|
|
|