Dear Ross,
thank you for returning to this question.
If C. donmoorei is a form of C. mus transitional forms should be known to
cowry students. Even if the former is a subspecies transitional forms still
could be found. It will be very interesting to hear about information of
this kind.
E. Petuch described a new species Cyp. donmoorei in 1979 (Bulletin of marine
science, 29(2):216-225) after comparing differences between the new species
and Cyp. mus in shell morphology,  anatomy of living animal (mantle
structure, head region, dorsum of  foot, radula) and ecology.
I did not find in lists of cypraeoidean literature for last 30 years a work
questioning this description, but maybe I overlooked something. So I think
Cyp. donmoorei is a valid species until opposite views will be proved.
Eduard Heiman
-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Mayhew <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: éåí ùðé 21 îàé 2001 06:41
Subject: Re: The Status of C. Siphocypraea (or Muracypraea) donmoorei


>Since nobody has answered Moshe's enquiry, i will take a stab at it,
>although i am certainly not as qualified as some:   Cyp. mus S.S. has a
>rather limited range on the east side of the range of its larger form
>Cyp. bicornis Sow. 1870 (donmoorei Petuch, 1979 is a synonym of
>bicornis) - right up there on the edge of Venezuela.  Bicornis has a
>very well developed margin (usually with a much broader and attractive
>pattern than mus S.S.) which has a heavy calus anteriorly, which often
>forms 1 to 3 prominant tubercules.  Many dealers (myself included, i
>blushingly admit!) like to play around with the nomenclature a bit, and
>call specimens with two well-formed tubercules "donmoorei bicornis", and
>the rare examples of three tubercules "tricornis", just for the sake of
>clarity, since most collectors are by now familiar with Petuch's name
donmoorei.
>
>Hope this clears things up!
>
>>From the great warming-up North (high today was 17!!);
>-Ross.
>