CONCH-L Archives

Conchologists List

CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Don Barclay <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Conchologists List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 2 Apr 2006 00:04:06 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (54 lines)
OK, perhaps the messages were too long.  I'll try again:


Thanks Harry,

I appreciate the excellent info as always.  The internet
isn't quite developed enough for me to track down info
like this yet... except for the fact I was able to track you
down, and you had the info.  That's a vast improvement
over the situation with communications in Pilsbry's days,
even his latter ones.  Maybe one day, all of the classic
references will be scanned and will only be one click
away on the internet, or whatever it's called by then.  I
may be too old or too dead to benefit, of course.  In any
case, I don't know how many others on Conch-L would
have had this info at hand, but I suspect not many.  I'm
indebted to you yet again for digging it out for me.

Coincidentally, I just got a reply from Gustav Paulay at
the same time I received yours, and he confirms that
the Astralium shell I posted on Poppe's forum is A.
plicatospinosum.  I had sent him shells of the Samoan
Astralium rhodostomum some years ago when he was
working on splitting up the A. rhodostomum complex at
the molecular level, and I knew he had been exposed to
some of the Line Island fauna, so I guessed correctly
that he might be able to give me an ID on the shell.  The
shells from Samoa probably fall into the A. confragosum
category, which Kaicher would have considered distinct,
and Cernohorsky would have considered a form of A.
rhodostomum, I believe.  I don't think either of the two
would have considered A. plicatospinosum to be a form
of A. rhodostomum, and even Pilsbry may have been
intentionally erring on the side of caution by describing
it as a variety of A. petrosum.

If I list it as a separate species, it should correctly be
called Astralium plicatospinosum Pilsbry, 1888 then?

Several more of my mysteries solved.  Thanks again,
Cheers,



Don

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2