Dear Gijs
        My study is obviously not to be regarded as the "Phylogeny of
the Stromboidea". It is only a step in that direction, sufficient, at
least, for I perform the caenogastropod phylogeny in superfamily level,
my main propose.  Obviously, there are lots of things to do!
        Luiz


Hi all,

The fact that there are just as many synapomorphies (13) that Terebellum
shares with strombids as it separates this genus from strombids gives
food
for thought.
Unfortinately, the very important study by Dr. Simone had some important
omissions:
there were no representatives of Tibia and Varicospira, and very few
Indo-Pacific taxa were included.
So, we're not even half way in unravelling the exact relationships
within
the Stromboideans.

Gijs

PS this is not meant as an attack on the work of Dr. Simone, in the
contrary.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Luiz Ricardo L. Simone" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 1:48 PM
Subject: RES: Terebellum


>         Dear Colleagues and stromboideans interested people
>         I studied 21 stromboidean species for my Ph. D. thesis (2
> struthiolariids, 3 aporrhaids, 3 xenophorids and 13 strombids) and
> performed a phylogeny based on detailed morphology.
>         Terebellum resulted as the first branch of Strombidae. It
shares
> 13 synapomorphies with remainder strombids but it is separated from
them
> by other 13 synapomorphies.
>         Another interesting result is the xenophorids located between
> the strombids (from which they chare 10 synapomorphies) and the
> representatives of remainder families. The formal taxon Aporrhaidae
had
> resulted paraphyletic.
>         I am available for any additional information.
>         Best wishes,
>         Luiz