I've just discovered the HSN website, and will make some comments
on Conch-L postings made while my subs was cancelled (oh no, not that
Grebneff again!).
        Angaria etc,  7-8-99: Astraea heliotropium has sculpture of
adorally-open scales. However I recently collected the first known specimen
of a new fossil species, from the earliest Miocene, which is
indistinguishable from A. heliotropium except that instead of scales it has
smooth rounded granules; these are of the same size and locations as the
descendant's scales (no, there were not scales originally present which had
been subsequently worn off). I believe that Astraeinae is no longer used,
being synonymized with Turbininae. Consider Bolma, which is a halfway house
between Astraea and Turbo in shell and opercular characteristics. The
operculum of Angaria differs from other turbinids mainly in that it is far
more tightly-coiled, thus resembling those of trochids. It does lack a
calcareous outer layer, but that is a secondary character, very easily
lost. All turbinids have a corneous operculum, though in most it has that
calcareous outer. Homalopomatinae have many-whorled opercs with only a thin
calcareous layer. If you include Liotiidae as a subfamily of Turbinidae,
these also have corneous many-whorled opercs, some with calcareous
granules. Perhaps Angaria does merit its own family, but I for now am happy
to call it a turbinid.
        Olivellidae etc, 26-8-99: That Olivella and Olividae look so
similar should not be surprising; it is quite probable that they resemble
one another because they evolved one from the other (directly or
indirectly) or shared a common ancestor. Ancillinae are also operculate?
Certainly presence/absence of operculum isn't enough to define families.
Look at volutids (Voluta, Fusivoluta, Lyria etc) and harpids (Morum),
families with both operculate and nonoperculate members. Look at
Volutomitra; some individuals of V. banksi have an operc and some do not!
If Terebellum is different enough from Strombidae to be separated at family
level, and I can't help but feel that it is, then what about Tibia and
Rimella? On shell characters these are very close to Aporrhaidae, but
perhaps different enough to be placed in their own family, Rostellariidae.
Pseudolividae, including Macron, has been refined by Geerat Vermeij, who
places it very close to Buccinidae (Melapium belongs not in Pseudolividae,
but probably in Strepturidae). Basically it consists of vaguely olividlike
shells bearing a distinct spiral groove separating base from flanks and
terminating with a labral spine or denticle. I am very leery of Russian
work. Cysticidae has been removed from the Marginellidae, partly on the
grounds of resorption of inner shell walls, so marginellid-only collectors
can now sell off their Cysticus, Persicula etc. These resemble olivids, and
may be derived from them.

Speaking of Tibia, is anyone familiar with extinct species? I collected two
Miocene and some Pliocene fossil species near Ba, NE Viti Levu, Fiji, and
they are not conspecific with living species; placed by Ladd in T. powisi,
supposedly from the late Pliocene, the Ba Valley Tibia are not that species
and appear in fact to be Miocene, based on pteropod determination (A. W.
Janssen in press).

Andrew