The tree structure that Kantor published in 1996 is consistent with his
classification from 1991. However, he used a smaller set of characters that
in some cases contradict the characters that he used in 1991. I've show the
number of characters that he used to support each branch.

Kantor (1991) said:

        |-----------6-----Amalda
---6----|
        |       |---3-----Oliva
        |---3---|
                |---8-----Olivella

This shows Olivella being a derived group of Olividae, since it nests
within Olividae, but has a lot of differences (8).

Kantor (1996) said:

        |-----------3-----Olivella
---5----|
        |       |---0-----Oliva
        |---4---|
                |---2-----Amalda

This does not show that Olividae is derived from the Olivellidae, only that
they have common ancestry. Given the uncertainty about the classification,
and that the traditional subfamily classification is consistent with both
trees, I still favor the traditional classification.

Gary

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Rosenberg, Ph.D.                     [log in to unmask]
Malacology & Invertebrate Paleontology    gopher://erato.acnatsci.org
Academy of Natural Sciences               http://www.acnatsci.org
1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway            Phone 215-299-1033
Philadelphia, PA 19103-1195 USA           Fax   215-299-1170