My dear Eduard and the ever-frozen Ross;-
    I thank you for your explanations. So, simply put, "form of--" is a local varient. "Sub-species" requires a geographical separation;---neither one clearly different enough to be a "Bran Nu, Rarely Seen" species---except in the eye of the seller.
   Thanks guys;-
     Q-Man
>
> From: Eduard <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 2003/02/17 Mon AM 04:13:05 EST
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: explanations
>
> Dear Art,
> let us consider Erosaria nebrites Melvill, 1888 and look at pictures 15-28
> on Plate 81 of "A Guide to ...." by Lorenz & Hubert. We can see in figs. 26,
> 30 a shell having a dilated and callused outer lip;  this is f. dilatata.
> This form is found in all known to me populations of E. nebrites never
> comprising the majority.  Similar
> shells (the same form) may be found also in populations of  E. erosa,
> Erosaria lamarckii,
> Erosaria turdus and so forth.
> Shells having unusually dark colorations are found in many cowry
> populations. All such shells may be called f. saturata  These are many
> examples
> of forms in molluscs, not only in cowries.
> E. nebrites may be used as an example of subspecies. It was mentioned by
> Melvill  as a variety (form) of Erosaria erosa. Dorsomarginal blotches,
> which are present in shells of E. erosa, are absent in shells of E.
> nebrites. Later malacologists discovered that a distinguishing character-the
> absence of dorsomarginal blotched-is present in the vast majority
> (practically in all) of
> erosa-like shells of the Red Sea and recognized these populations as a
> subspecies of erosa: Erosaria erosa nebrites. It is restricted to the Red
> Sea and the Gulf of Aden and, perhaps, to near-by areas. Burgess(1985), who
> did not recognize subspecies in principle,  mentioned finding specimens of
> nebrites on American Samoa and concluded: "if it was nebrites and not simply
> a freak erosa, then we must suspect that all nebrites are simply a variation
> of erosa." That means that all nebrites inhabiting the Red Sea (billions !)
> are simply freaks. Sometimes discussion between collectors recognizing
> subspecies and these which do not recognize subspecies in principle
> resembles debates between religious people and atheists: maximum,  agreement
> can be reached to respect each other.
> E. nebrites is recognized by many malacologists as a valid species. I think
> this is correct. Almost correct, because there is a problem with the main
> distinguishing (specific) character of this species -the dorsomarginal
> blotches. They are absent in the vast majority of nebrites shells, but not
> in ALL shells; these blotches are absent sometimes in shells of erosa too,
> never comprizing the vast majority. This problem will be solved in the
> future
> These are examples of forms and subspecies. To collect and study them is, in
> my opinion, is very interesting.
> Ed
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 4:53 AM
> Subject: explanations
>
>
> > Now that you have decided on what species is---or may be, I wonder if
> there is a decent description of the difference between "sub-species" and
> "form of-".
> >   Enquiring minds want to know.
> >    The Question Man
> >
> >
> > PLEASE NOTE: My new, long-term, and correct email address is:
> [log in to unmask] Please update your records!
>

PLEASE NOTE: My new, long-term, and correct email address is: [log in to unmask] Please update your records!