Dear Bill, Tall, et al.,

As regards these three Cymatium spp., let me first endorse Betty Jean's
entreaty for size data.  Next, I sure wish the opercula were left out of
the image; they add nothing while detracting from some important characters
in the aperture.

Shell no. 1 is very special; I haven't spoken up because I thought sort of
stupid not knowing what it was.  Having seen others admit its uniqueness, I
am now steeled into calling it an un-named taxon.  I cannot reconcile the
aperture with even a freak specimen of any species I know.

Shells no. 2 and 3 are a little more familiar, and both look like they've
been lightly charred in a toaster oven.  I don't think that they are
un-naturally treated or depicted.  The coloration could well be
environment-related.

I must respectfully disagree with Betty Jean on shell no. 2.  It is more
likely Cymatium sarcostoma (Reeve, 1844) (note correct termination is "a,"
"sarcostoma" being a noun in apposition and therefore not declined as an
adjective). C. pyrum is close, but it has a coarser sculpture and a
diffusely pigmented aperture with stronger parietal lirae.

Shell no. 3 is a typical juvenile C. lotorium (Linnaeus, 1758).  Unlike
most tritons, the little shells of this species are not miniature versions
of the adult ones.  As it grows, the spire of C. l. becomes relatively
longer and the profile broadens irregularly like a Distorsio.  C.
grandimaculatum (Reeve, 1844) is quite different at this stage of growth;
it IS a replica of the adult shell.

Harry


At 02:48 PM 1/26/00 -0500, you wrote:
>To Bill Frank (and Harry Lee):
>
>Have been busy struggling with the snow we are having here in Delaware so
>have been slow to respond. All my shells are stored in cabinets in a
>special section of our garage that is not accessible right now due to the
>piles of snow in front of the garage door.  So am trying to ID these
>specimens just from the pictures you Emailed, and have not been too
>successful.
>
>Would like to start out with a suggestion.  It would be very helpful to
>have the dimensions of the shells, both length and width.
>
>Regarding the largest shell in the middle, it is Cymatium (Ranularia) pyrum
>(Linné, 1758).  My only concern is that the siphonal canal is not quite as
>long as it usually is, but probably not beyond an acceptable
>variation.  Everything else matches very well.  It is not a Cymatium
>(Lotoria) lotorium or grandimaculata as was suggested.
>
>Unfortunately I do not have a definite answer for the other two
>specimens.  Juveniles can be very confusing, the one on the right being
>very immature.  I have been using Alan Beu's new book and found one
>newly-described species that I thought might be a possibility, only problem
>is that its locality is Oman - a long way from the Philippines.  So I am
>going to leave them for someone better at this than I am.   How about you
>two, I consider you both ranellid experts.  What do you think they are?
>
>Betty Jean, The Tall One
>
>At 09:05 AM 1/25/00 -0500, you wrote:
>>Pete Stimpson (Loudon, TN) has submitted images of three Ranellidae and
>>one Cypraea species for review by members of Conch-L, in the hope that
>>identifications will be forthcoming.  The images can be found at:
>>
>>  http://home.mindspring.com/~strombus/pete.htm
>>
>>Bill Frank
>>1865 Debutante Dr.
>>Jacksonville, Florida 32246
>>[log in to unmask]
>>[log in to unmask]
>>--------------------
>>Visit the Jacksonville Shell Club Home Page
>>http://home.sprynet.com/~wfrank/jacksonv.htm

Harry G. Lee
Suite 500
1801 Barrs St.
Jacksonville, FL 32204
USA   904-384-6419
<[log in to unmask]>
Visit the Jacksonville Shell Club Home Page at:
http://home.sprynet.com/~wfrank/jacksonv.htm

oo  .--.  oo  .--.  oo  .--.
 \\(____)_ \\(____)_ \\(____)_
  `~~~~~~~` `~~~~~~~` `~~~~~~~`