At 04:33 PM 1/20/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Not being one who has any expertise in the Olividae, how would people
>compare and contrast Zeigler and Porreca's book with that of Petuch and
>Sargent?
>
>Charlie
>*************************************************************************
>
>Charlie Sturm, Jr
>Clinical Instructor - Family Medicine
>  University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
>Research Associate - Section of Invertebrate Zoology
>  Carnegie Museum of Natural History
>
>[log in to unmask]
>
Charlie:
 
I guess that I fancy myself as an "olive" person and have been studying
them for years, this is my chance to contribute.  Connie Boone had actually
asked me to review Petuch's book for the "Texas Conchologist" but I was
moving from Texas to New Mexico at that time, with a new demanding job,
raising a family, etc.  Well, I guess that better later (10 years) than never!
 
There are pros and cons to both Zeigler and Porreca (1969) and Petuch and
Sargent (1986):
 
Naming and Discussion of Species
 
What I like about Zeigler is that he gave some history of the synonymy of
species (at least the important authors), which for the Olivas is about as
mixed up as any genus.  He also recognized many different "forms", or
subspecies (by other authors), which is necessary for a genus with few
readily apparent physical diagnostic characteristics, and a tremendous
variety in coloration and pattern.  In summary, Zeigler was more of what I
would call a "lumper".  His intent, in my opinion, was to provide a book to
be used by collectors to identify their species of Oliva.
 
Petuch, on the other hand, gave almost no extensive synonymies at all
(there are a few exceptions, e.g., Oliva miniacea), and seems to have been
on another binge to name a lot of new species, for what Zeigler (and
myself) would call forms or subspecies.  However, with the advent of more
deep water exploring for mollusks in recent years with tangle nets and
dredging, Petuch did figure and describe a number of unique deep water
Oliva species that hadn't been dealt with in the literature up until that
point.  In summary, Petuch is at the other end of the spectrum, what I
would call an "extreme" splitter.
 
The number of "new" species that he described from the Caribbean is
incredible, mostly local variations in Oliva reticularis (which is a very
variable species) based on color or form.  There are some species of Oliva
that are highly variable (e.g., Oliva reticularis) and others are very
consistent (e.g., Oliva porphyria).  I mainly have worked in the
paleontological side of the Olives, where color and patterns do not exist,
and I am highly skeptical of naming species based mainly on those
attributes.  In his early chapters, Petuch mentions how important the
characteristics of the protoconch is in identification and separation of
species of Oliva, but then almost ignores this criteria in the systematic
part of the book.  Tursch and other workers in recent years (mainly in the
journal "Apex") have demonstrated how important the shape, size and
relative measurements of the protoconch are for discriminating species of
Oliva.  I will be using their techniques for my future paleontological
papers on Olividae as a guide for discriminating species. Many of the
dealers out there must get tired of how picky I am about a "complete"
protoconch on my specimens!
 
Petuch also has a habit of resurrecting "old" names for species that were
described many years ago.  This is a noble effort, but I think in many
cases he did not do his homework prior to re-introducing these names into
common use.  Also, his introduction of many subgenera seems premature based
on the general attributes that he lists in the beginning of his book.
 
Plates
 
Zeigler did a very good job with his plates.  The specimens are presented
mainly at "life-size" and the quality of the photographs is very good.  I
could site down with Zeigler's book and actually identify specimens of
Oliva with his plates!
 
I realize that Petuch had a number of new "species" and "forms" that he
described and wanted to figure everything, but a larger format for the book
would have been helpful.  The quality of the individual photographs is poor
in many cases and often severely reduced from "life-size" to be almost
unusable.  A real shame, since a "new" book on recent Olivas, with many of
the obviously new species figured, was badly needed.
 
Other Items
 
Petuch indicates the institution and ID number for all his holotypes, which
is a great help for future workers.  He also indicates where some of the
paratypes or figured specimens are located in other private collections.
It would have been nice if Petuch (and Zeigler) would have deposited ALL
their figured specimens in institutions for other workers to examine,
particularly where "old" names were being resurrected as valid species.
 
I guess I have rambled on enough.  I hope that this helps.  I have both
books in my bookcase and both are well used and marked up!
 
Paul Drez
Albuquerque, NM
[log in to unmask]