Martin,
 
I am certainly no cone expert, but according to Walls, "Cone Shells - A Synopsis
of the Living Conidae," C. connectens, 1854 is valid but..."This is one of those
species whose synonymy is cursed."  Apparently the first two names used (C.
pulchellus, 1798 and C. cinctus, 1801) were invalid as they already occupied.  The
names were applied to distinctly and indistinctly banded phases of the shell.  The
name connectens was applied to a beach worn specimen and it was later often
labeled as C. circumactus, 1854.  Walls seems to think that C. connectens, C.
circumactus, and C. hammatus are all phases of the same shell.  He also says C.
striatellus and C. planorbis are sometimes incorrectly sold as C. connectens.  So,
you pays your money and you takes your choice.  He also says there is great
variability in color with some having a lot of pink and others being mostly brown.
 
If the above data is now wrong, hopefully someone will correct me and thus give
you better data.  I would have included the date for Walls book but I swear there
is no date on the title page or anywhere else that I could find!!
 
Good luck
 
Tom Eichhorst in New Mexico, USA