Try  [log in to unmask]


----- Original Message -----
From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 11:21 AM
Subject: Contacting Harry Lee RE: failure notice


> Harry and Conch'L members,
> I'm sorry to post this private email on Conch-L, but I've had emails to
> Harry bounced back twice during the past 24 hours, [log in to unmask]  This
> thread is shell related though, dealing with a dubious Buccinid species.
> Rich
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From:  [log in to unmask]
> Date: 6 Aug 2002 09:16:25 -0000
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: failure notice
>
>
> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mail2.neureal.com.
> I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following
addresses.
> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
>
> <[log in to unmask]>:
> Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host,
> it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6)
>
> --- Below this line is a copy of the message.
>
> X-Sender: [log in to unmask]
> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
> Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 01:14:00 -0400
> To: "Harry G. Lee" <[log in to unmask]>
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: a buccinid of yours
> In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 11249669==_.ALT"
>
> Harry,
> I agree.  Undoubtedly, Alison Kay's illustrated specimen, the Compendium
> shell, your shell, and mine are all the same.  Whether these shells
conform
> with the correct description for Engina farinosa is another
> story.  Hawaiian Marine Shells contains the only description for Engina
> farinosa that seems to be a good match for the shells at hand.  What say
ye?
> Rich
>
> At 07:36 AM 7/25/2002, you wrote:
> >Dear Richie,
> >
> >This is a rather crummy scan of my 17.5 mm. specimen from "6-8 m., on
dead
> >coral, Fernao Veloso Bay Mozambique."  I received it from Atlantic on
>  7/15/01.
> >
> >It seems a little dumpier than your shell and that in the Compendium, but
> >it lacks the early whorls.  I think these are all one species.  Do you??
> >
> >Harry
> >
> >At 12:08 AM 7/22/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> >>Harry,
> >>The Engina species illustrated in my talk is identified as E. farinosa
> >>(Gould, 1860) [see Cernohorsky, 1978, pg. 75].  Though his illustration
> >>on plate 22 does not mimic the shell exactly
> >>http://www.worldwideconchology.com/Engina_farinosa.jpg , his written
> >>description of a more squat species than E. egregia falls into line with
> >>the look of my shells.  The best and most closely related illustration
is
> >>in Kay, 1979 Hawaiian Marine Shells, Figure 92,  D.  Interestingly,
these
> >>specimens were collected by Scott Johnson over a dozen years ago, and
> >>identified by Alison Kay.  I would be interested to know more about your
> >>findings and investigations of this species.  Please include me in your
> >>future correspondence.  Thanks and take care.
> >>Regards,
> >>Rich
> >>
> >>At 01:49 PM 7/20/2002, you wrote:
> >>>Dear Richie,
> >>>
> >>>Great talk at COA 2002.  Hope the other arenas of activity were equally
> >>>well-enjoyed by you and those around you.
> >>>
> >>>In your slide presentation I saw an Engina, the name and author of
which
> >>>I wrote down and promptly lost.  It seemed to be the un-named species
> >>>discussed below (and about the anonymity of which I was a quite likely
> >>>incorrect).  It is figured in Abbott and Dance's Compendium on page 167
> >>>in the left lower corner.
> >>>
> >>>Can you email me this info??
> >>>
> >>>Thanks,
> >>>Harry
> >>>
> >>>Reference:
> >>>Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 18:59:01 -0500
> >>>Reply-To: Conchologists of America List <[log in to unmask]>
> >>>Sender: Conchologists of America List <[log in to unmask]>
> >>>From: "Harry G. Lee" <[log in to unmask]>
> >>>
> >>>Dear Paul,
> >>>
> >>>You are correct. The Compendium species is likely un-named. The
> >>>lectotype of N. pusilla (a pair of figures in Chemnitz, 1780 Conchylien
> >>>Cabinet vol. 4) forms the basis for Cernohorsky's diagnosis of that
> >>>taxon, which is somewhat variable and includes Patty's form, as Henk
> >>>indicated.
> >>>
> >>>I have a shell (shallow water, Mozambique) essentially identical to the
> >>>Compendium specimen; this taxon appears to be rather consistent
> >>>conchologically.
> >>>
> >>>Harry
> >>>
> >>>At 12:20 AM 2/2/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >>>>I believe the Nassaria on Patty's page is Nassaria pusilla (Roding,
> >>>>1798). The pictures in the Compendium are rather confusing. The shell
> >>>>shown as N. pusilla does not appear to be this species, in my opinion.
> >>>>Anyone else have input on this?
> >>>>
> >>>>Regards,
> >>>>Paul M.
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .