Dear Ross and Conch-Lers: Find here some comments to your questions

1) Which Indian Ocean species did Jerry Walls erroneously call C.
lemniscatus Reeve?

Reply: Conus dictator Mevill, 1898

2) What is the taxonomic status of Conus optabilis Adams 1854??  I have
it down as "Incertae cedis, possiby a form of sennottorum Rehder &
Abbott.  Does anyone have a clarification for this designation?

Reply: Have a look at the holotype shown at Alan Kohn's web site:
http://biology.burke.washington.edu/conus/recordview/record.php?
ID=1968l154&shw=1101113&ref=g
My feeling is that it is close to sennottorum

3) Is C. clenchi Martins, 1943 a valid form of lemniscatus Reeve?

Reply: Again, have a look at the holotype of lemniscatus:
http://biology.burke.washington.edu/conus/recordview/record.php?
ID=1568l131l307&shw=1101111&frm=1&limit=10&offset=0&Res=&Srt=Species&Sql2=W
here++Species+Like+%27lemniscatus%27
Clearly, lemniscatus seems to be a senior synonym to clenchi. Besides, the
original description of clenchi is based upon a single, dead through fresh
specimen, which however I have been not able to see. This means that if it
is to be considered a "form" then this form was represented by a single
specimen! Get your own conclusions.

4) Has anyone done a recent summary article of the "daucus complex"?  Is
there a lot of disagreement among researchers as to which of its members
are species and which forms, varieties or subspecies?  Has any breeding
or DNA research been done on them

Reply: I am not aware of any work in this sense, although it might be
currentlt under way. I agree that there is much confusion regarding this
complex.


5) Are protoconchs and charactaristics of subnuclear whorls "defnitive"
in the identification of most cones, or are there a significant number
of cases where these charactaristics are too variable to be diagnostic?

Reply: I do not believe that any single shell character on its own is
definitive. I rather think that all shell and mollusc characters plus
ecological observations, etc as a whole help in the characterisation of a
species. Of course, some characters are more important than others, and
this is the case of radula or the examination of the protoconch, for
instance, but I would not call it definitive. There is a very nice example
of the separation of species within the clerii complex based ipon
protoconch analysis in "Resultats scientifiques des campagnesde la
Calypso, fascicule VIII: le cones du Brésil" by van Mol, Tursch and Kempf.
In here it is demonstrated the separation between clerii and clenchi
(=lemniscatus), and the fact that carcellesi is a southern subspecies of
lemniscatus.

Finally, a couple of weeks ago there was a discussion in this group
regarding the status of Conus milneedwardsi and questioning the validity
of the name and the holotype. Well, now the holotype is online as well:
http://biology.burke.washington.edu/conus/recordview/record.php?
ID=1775l338l175&shw=1101111&frm=1&limit=10&offset=0&Res=&Srt=Species&Sql2=W
here++Species+Like+%27milneedwardsii%27
It is clearly a specimen of a baby milneedwardsi in which the original
description is based, but it is completely valid from the taxonomic point
of view.
Warmest regards to all

Manuel J. Tenorio
Jerez, Cádiz
SPAIN

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------