thanks. That's what I thought.
Peggy
On Tuesday, December 23, 2003, at 09:03 PM, Billl Fenzan wrote:
> Peggy,
>
> I believe the names should be:
>
> Conus anabathrum Crosse, 1865
> Conus anabathrum floridensis Sowerby III, 1870
> Conus anabathrum burryae Clench, 1942
> Conus anabathrum tranthami Petuch, 1995
>
> Note that the latin words, Conus and the species name, should be in
> italics.
> This is just a text message, so I can't format.
>
> Some treat C. anabathrum burryae as a separate species (e.g. Conus
> burryae
> Clench, 1942). I believe this is not allowed since the taxon was
> originally
> proposed as a subspecies. For names originally proposed as
> subspecies, the
> International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature needs to be
> petitioned
> to elevate the taxon in rank to a species. To my knowledge, this has
> not
> been done. Based on material I have seen, there appears to be
> intergrades
> between "classic" C. anabathrum burryae and C. anabathrum within
> populations
> collected in the Florida Keys, so I feel there is only one, variable
> species
> involved.
>
> Hope this helps. Merry Christmas.
>
> Bill Fenzan
> Norfolk, Virginia
>
>
> Some others
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peggy Williams" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 7:14 PM
> Subject: anabathrum
>
>
>> I knew that it was changed to anabathrum; the question is: Is Conus
>> floridanus burryae (and
>> tranthami and floridensis) now Conus anabathrus burryae? or would it
>> now be just Conus burryae?
>>
>> Peggy
>>
>> Peggy Williams: shell collecting trips
>> Visit my website: www.Shelltrips.com
>> PO Box 575
>> Tallevast FL 34270
>> (941) 355-2291
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>
>
Peggy Williams: shell collecting trips
Visit my website: www.Shelltrips.com
PO Box 575
Tallevast FL 34270
(941) 355-2291
[log in to unmask]
|
