There has been considerable confusion about just what constitutes "Conus
coelinae" in the Philippines.  As I understand it, Habe & Kosuge first named
the Conus kintoki from the Philippines in 1970, but didn't publish a formal
description, so the name was subsequently invalidated.  Veillard, in 1972,
described Conus berdulinus.  Kosuge and others stated that the Philippine
shells formerly called Conus kintoki were synonymous with Veillard's Conus
berdulinus.  Some authors also treated Conus berdulinus as a subspecies of
Conus coelinae, including Jerry Walls in his book "Cone Shells".  Walls shows
a picture of "Conus coelinae berdulinus" from the Philippines, which is
indistinguishable from Conus kintoki.  However, subsequent studies of the
type material of Conus berdulinus showed it to be distinct from the
Philippine specimens, and consequently Coomans and Moolenbeek, in 1982,
reinstated the name Conus kintoki, and published the necessary formal
description, thereby separating that species from Conus berdulinus, and from
Conus coelinae.  So, the question is whether reports of "Conus coelinae" from
the Philippines are actually Conus coelinae coelinae Crosse, or whether they
are "Conus coelinae berdulinus", in which case they are actually Conus
kintoki.
Paul M.