Bulla! is a greeting word in Fiji. Fijian tigris I have seen were quite
small. In the Cook Island, locals were proud of gigantic tigris like in
Hawaii. In Tonga, also rather large specimens were found. Size itself does
not provide a means of species recognition. Color patterns are also
inadequate markers in taxonomy of molluscs in general. Be careful,
nevertheless. There is a published report that one form of C. moneta did not
recognize the other form of the supposed same species (I forgot which but
smooth and knobby forms are involved) as pairing partners. Such a
reproductive barrier may indicate specific segregation (or micro-evolution
and speciation in our jargon) in progress. There are many examples of
"cryptic species" that superficially look the same but in fact are
genetically differentiated. The battle between lumpers and splitters may
continue but it is fruitless as long as both depended on superficial
characters. The real world is in fact very complex in this aspect of
evolution as revealed by recent advances in studies at molecular level of
many living organisms.
Masashi Yamaguchi (Department of Marine Sciences, University of the Ryukyus
- population biology and larval cultivation are my trade in science)

-----Original Message-----
From:   Nancy Smith [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:   Wednesday, February 02, 2000 3:11 PM
To:     [log in to unmask]
Subject:        Re: Cypraea tigris vs. schilderiana

 << File: ATT00001.htm >> The only images I had seen of tigris form
schilderiana had seemed to be
more white with black, unfocused spotting where most tigris images I'd
encountered had at least some tan, gold or browns very evident and I
wondered if that was the difference.   Thanks for the clarification.

I have to agree with you that there seem to be an awful lot of "forms" of
so many species.   Just recently I noticed on Dr. Lorenz's wonderful site
(which I admire greatly and visit regularly) that there were a lot of new
names around that I hadn't heard before...  geez just when you think
you're
catching up...  <lol>  well anyway also somewhere on his site there was a
mention of "splitters and lumpers" which I assume fall into our discussion
of tendencies for splitting species up into many forms or more species or
lumping many variances into one species.    I would not presume to offer
an
opinion on this, for I don't know nearly enough about this all just
yet.   But is "more" necessarily "better" or even more accurate?   Perhaps
to ease my 'learning curve' I'll be a lumper for a while until the
whiplash
from the curves heals.  ;-)

Best regards,
Nancy Smith
who is presently immersed in the study of new bulla and juvenile cyp
specimens... :)


>Some of our Cypraeaologists may disagree with me, and if so I'll be
>interested to hear it, but as far as I know there are no differences in
shell
>or soft parts between "typical" Cypraea tigris and the "form" Cypraea
tigris
>schilderiana.  The only difference is that Cypraea tigris tends to grow
>larger in Hawaii, and it is those large Hawaiian specimens that got
tagged
>with the name "schilderiana".  Since size alone is not a valid criterion
for
>taxonomic separation, I personally think the name schilderiana should be
>declared invalid.  And if size is accepted as a criterion, what is the
>cutoff?  Is a 120 mm Cypraea tigris from the Philippines a
"schilderiana"?
>If not, then it would seem that geography, rather than any characteristic
of
>the animal is really the deciding factor, and that would be strange
indeed!
>While I am on this kick, I feel the same way about the South African
"Cypraea
>arabica immanis".  Why can't we just say that Cypraea arabica grows bigger
in
>South Africa?  Why does it have to have a different name?
>Paul M.