Dear Gijs;
        I do not think that pilsbry Abbott can be properly called a "subspecies" of
Lambis crocata L., if the recent extensions of range (ie, excluding the Zanzibar
one, which is quite unmistakable (http://www.geocities.com/conchlimages/) - it
has the gently curved, long spines, and the apex is concealed by the first
digit.  True, it has a ridge on the left side of the columellar callus, but this
may does not seem to be so important.) from Sri Lanka and the Seychelles (Tim is
in contact with a lady whose name i forgot, who claims to have collected the
form in these islands. prove valid - rather, it   should simply be regarded as a
form with an interesting distribution.

Summer still lives!,
Ross.


          "Gijs C. Kronenberg" wrote:

Dear Lambis crocata lovers,

In his original description Abbott gives 182+, 212+ and 240 mm as length
including spines. I seriously doubt the identity of Mr. da Silva's L. crocata
pilsbryi, but there is of course always a possibility. I have two rather large
L. crocata crocata of approx. 155 mm from the Philippines, and one of approx.
160 mm from the Seychelles, still considerably smaller as the sizes indicated by
Abbott. My other specimens of L.c.crocata, originating from different
localities, throughout the distribution area as indicated by Abbott, are smaller.
Size however is not a very good, at least not always, a reliable indication; in
my stromb collection I have adult specimens measuring less then half the size of
adults of the same species.
L.c.crocata and L.c.pilsbryi are however also differentiated in other ways:
+ the spines (3rd, 4th and 5th) are straight or just slightly curved in L.c.pilsbryi
+ L.c.pilsbryi lacks the fairly prominent edge on the left of the parietal callus
+ in L.c.pilsbryi the dorsal knob on the shoulder is larger
+ in L.c.pilsbryi the apes of the spire is usually buried by the first digitation
When the Sri Lanka and Zanzibar records of L.c.pilsbryi prove to be reliable,
this would start a new problem: can L.c.pilsbryi still be accepted as a
subspecies, or do we have to synonymyse it with L.c.crocata, or do we have to
recognise L.pilsbryi (i.e. as a species).

kind regards,

Gijs C. Kronenberg