I cast a vote for the lumpers.  The advent of DNA analysis will surely bring
about more unity than distinction amongst subgenera, species and subspecies.
Soon a book will appear revealing the homogenity of the Cypraeidae genus
Zoila.  My God, look at man: if we split ourselves based on morphologyy, we
would all be separate species!
 
Not to knock morphology.  Comparing the conclusions drawn from morphological
studies against those demonstrated by DNA analysis will surely be of use to
paleontologists.
 
Admittedly this is just an amateur's opinion,
 
Scott Jordan
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Callomon <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Saturday, March 06, 1999 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: Conus information
 
 
>> sorry but Conus tinianus is vormivorous or molluscivorous and in the
genus
>> dendroconus subgenus ketyconus with other notable cones such as
califoricus,
>> nigropunctatus , gilchristi and a dozen or so others .
>
>My humble opinion only, but I have a large series of gilchristi from Natal
>which intergrade fully to tinianus. They are the same species as far as I
>can see. Arranged in a row, the pale blue-white of gilchristi is gradually
>punctuated with patches of tinianus' patterning until the bodywhorl is
>completely covered; spire pattern and early whorl sculpture are identical
>in all specimens.
>
>In compiling our new Catalogue, the question of the subdivision of the
>genus Conus inevitably arose. Here in Japan, they love to split and a
>minimum of 15-25 subgenera of Conus is normal. In some cases these are
>elevated to full genera (Higo & Goto, 1993 etc.) The splitters will thus
>throw up their hands in horror at what we decided to do - the Conidae are
>classified in the new work according to Taylor, Kantor and Sysoev's study
>of foregut anatomy, and the 'Cone shells' are now the monogeneric subfamily
>Coninae. While various methods for subdividing the genus Conus have been
>proposed (DaMotta's shell-shape method; Pin and Tack's muscle-scar method
>etc.) none of them works for the whole genus, even considered exclusively
>on their own terms. Factor in elements which were not considered (DaMotta
>did not consider radula morphology or toxin chemistry; Pin and Tack did not
>consider anything except scar morphology) and it becomes impossible to
>apply these partially-reasoned criteria with any certainty. The genera of
>Roeding and Montfort's era (Rollus, Hermes, Cylinder etc. etc.) were
>relatively easy to justify with the number of specimens to hand at the
>time. Genera created for morphologically similar groupings (Dendroconus,
>Virroconus, Turriconus etc) become harder and harder to support as the
>number of species known increases, a sure sign that the original criteria
>are suspect. As anyone who compiles series of the same species from various
>localities will probably admit, the Cones are very prone to form
>populations with distinctive characteristics (the huge but paper-thin C.
>textile of northwestern Thailand compared with their fat, thick and heavy
>sisters from Wakayama and the Sinai; the very thick, gnarled and almost
>patternless C. miles of the Amami islands compared with the thinner, more
>delicate shells of the Philippines; the small, peach-coloured C. coronatus
>of Tanegashima compared with the huge, blue-grey specimens of northern
>Queensland etc.) and each newly-discovered population nibbles away further
>at the foundations of the various classifications.
>
>Some folks find the idea of a single genus with 600-plus species an offence
>to their sense of order; there is apparently a feeling that each genus can
>only reach a certain size before it must be divided (the same mentality is
>often seen at work in the subfamilies of the Buccinidae). I suspect that
>sooner or later it will be possible to divide Conus on the basis of an
>easily-verifiable criterion, but so far I can't see one. What do Conch-L
>people think? One genus or many? If many, then how many?
>
>
>PC.