Yes, i am aware of that. Clench & Turner, 1964 had also placed
it in the synonmy of A. ancilla some years before with the same
"Locality in error" note, and did not discuss it either.

In the original description Rivers mentions that the shell is
one inch and 7/8th long with six whorls, the protoconch is
oblique, and there are two large patches of dark rusty red at a
wide interal... This description does not conform with A.
ancilla to me.
I have no access to Nautilus paper, but in Proc. paper, Rivers
does not figure the specimen, nor gave depository for this
specimen... Maybe there is an ilustration on Nautilus that could
bring light to this issue.

any data or oppinion will be of great help!

Fabio Wiggers



--- Richard Petit <[log in to unmask]> escreveu:

> The  problem with this "species" is that it was mislocalized.
> Weaver &
> DuPont (1970: 103)placed it in the synonmy of Adelomelon
> ancilla (Lightfoot,
> 1786) with a note that "locality in error."  They do not even
> mention it in
> the discussion.
>
> Prof. Rivers described (extremely poorly) one other species, a
> fossil
> Bathytoma, but it had been named decades before by Gabb.
>
> Rivers gave no depository for his "species."
>
> dick petit
>
>








_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! doce lar. Faça do Yahoo! sua homepage.
http://br.yahoo.com/homepageset.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------