Hi,
Although I'm by no means a Cypraea expert, I have been concerned with this
particular question myself for a while, so here is just an outline of what
can be found on the web about this.
Lorenz's opinion about "donmoorei" in the second edition of the Guide was
clear: It is a junior synonym of Cypraea mus bicornis. However, a short
time after appearance of this second edition, Lorenz had a note on his web
site under "What's new?", in which he acknowledged C. m. donmoorei as a
valid subspecies of C. mus in addition to C. m. bicornis. This note has by
now disappeared again from his web site.
It is not quite clear whether Lorenz has changed his mind or not. On the
same web site, you find the "Checklist"
( http://www.cowries.net/checklist/checklist.html ), which makes no mention
of donmoorei at all. However, there also is an "Alternative checklist" (
http://www.cowries.net/checklist/alternative.html ), which "is meant as a
forum of discussion" and lists C. donmoorei as a full species (not a
subspecies of C. mus), while, also on the same web site, his "Iconography
of Cypraeidae"
( http://www.cowries.net/CYPICT/picturelist.html ) lists C. mus bicornis
forma donmoorei, and, as already mentioned, his sales list
( http://www.cowries.net/sale/general.html ) contains C. mus donmoorei as
"the true form" with "dense, coarse dentition", and a picture showing this.
If I remember the note mentioned above correctly, the distinction between
what Lorenz at the time called C. m. bicornis and C. m. donmoorei was that
in bicornis the dentition is reduced and not distinct (similar to C. mus
mus) and in donmoorei the teeth are distinct. I personally also feel that
there is a color difference between the two, with donmoorei being lighter
and the lines reaching higher up on the margins.
As for shallow water specimens with tubercules, the Guide also mentions
that in rare instances C. mus mus can be tuberculate.
Over time I have had quite a few specimens of all three forms in my
collection and trading material. I believe that I can easily distinguish
all three -- but, of course, that may be wishful thinking. On the other
hand, they are really similar enough that they appear to be varieties
(subspecies, forms, what have you) of the same species -- unless the animal
itself would support a full species C. donmoorei, which I don't know. All
material I saw that came from Colombia so far has been what I would call C.
m. donmoorei, while all three forms seem to occur in northern Venezuela,
but only C. m. mus in (at times extremely) shallow water.
This, of course, doesn't really solve the issue at all, just sheds some
more confusing light on it. Personally, I go with C. m. mus, C. m.
bicornis, and C. m. donmoorei, and, maybe, barring further research,
everybody may have to make their own decisions about this...
Monika
in San Diego
heimel
<heimel@NETVISIO To: [log in to unmask]
N.NET.IL> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: The Status of C. Siphocypraea (or
Conchologists of Muracypraea) donmoorei
America List
<CONCH-L@LISTSER
V.UGA.EDU>
05/22/01 03:13
AM
Please respond
to Conchologists
of America List
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: יום שני 21 מאי 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.
>
|
