Dear Sim Amphidromus perversus does not occur in Phuket, but there are certainly other Amphidromus in Thailand - most of which are not easy to get. A. perversus is only Bali, and while I have seen a number of Philippine and Papua New Guinean snails passed off as being from Thailand I have not had this from Indonesia. Unfortunately I cannot give more detail on the other Amphidromus species until I find some missing papers Regards Geoff >From: "MR.SIM (SWEE FHAI)" <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: Conchologists of America List <[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: Shells ID >Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 02:05:35 +0800 > >Dear Conch-Lers, >I think the Lima is surely Lima tetrica. I received 4 specimen and they are >small compared to Lima Lima from my area. I was told that these little >white Lima tetrica are from deep water and they were trawled by shrimpers >in Baja California. Am I right ? > >As for the land snails, I got them from a Thai dealer, he said they are >from Thailand which I felt very suspicious. I want more info. May be Geoff >is correct, some could be from Philippines. Do you find Amp. Perversus in >Phuket ? I purchased some left and right handed ones there. > >The Trochid/Calliostoma could be from Florida. Gary L. Heit saw the >trochid/Calliostoma and he mentioned that there is one that look like it >from Florida. > >A thousand thanks for the information. > >SIM of Borneo. >[log in to unmask] > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Harry G. Lee > To: [log in to unmask] > Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 3:07 AM > Subject: Re: Shells ID > > > Paul, Sim, et al., > > Based on shell morphology including rib count, Sim's Lima is almost >certainly L. tetrica Gould, 1851 (type locality "Gulf of California at La >Paz [Baja California Sur, Pacific], Mexico" fide Johnson, 1974) - and not >its Caribbean cognate. This analysis indicates a Panamic Province origin >for his specimen. > > P. M. Mikkelsen and Bieler (1998) indicated, as had a few previous >authors, not only that these two (Caribbean and Panamic) Lima lima >relatives differ at the specific level, but also that Lima lima (Linnaeus, >1758), L. caribaea d'Orbigny, 1842, and L. sowerbyi Deshayes, 1863 (from >the eastern Atlantic, Caribbean, and Indo-west Pacific respectively) could >also be distinguished as separate taxa. > > Since Sim is situated in the latter province, he may be interested to >know that his Lima lima relative probably cannot be called L. sowerbyi >Deshayes, 1863 legitimately because that name was applied (earlier) to a >different species by Geinitz (1850) - a fact apparently overlooked by the >M. and B. Besides pointing out this homonymy, Cernohorsky (1972) argued in >favor of the name L. vulgaris (Link, 1807) for the Indo-west Pacific taxon >citing the type locality of "Tranquebar [and the Red Sea]" (vs. any of the >other faunal zones we've considered) applied by Chemnitz (1784) to the >figure Link cited (as his type specimen). > > I'm not sure this (and other type illustrations) are convincing enough >to safely proceed with the four species paradigm, but on review of the >shells in my collection, I believe there is merit in that phylogeny. It >would be nice, however, if a worker would indicate the type material in a >less ambiguous way than we currently have available. The provision of >lecto-, neo-, other types would likely needed for proper resolution. > > If this isn't confusing enough, you'll certainly want to also read Dodge >(1952; pp. 186-187). It makes me glad I don't do this stuff for a living. > > Harry > > Literature consulted: > Cernohorsky, W. O., 1972. Marine shells of the Pacific volume II. >Pacific Publications, Sydney. pp. 1-411 incl. 68 pls. > Dodge, H., 1952. A historical review of the mollusks of Linnaeus. Part >I. The classes Loricata and Pelecypoda. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 100(1): >1-263. > Johnson, R. I., 1974. The Recent Mollusca of Augustus Addison Gould. U. >S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 239: 1-182 + pls. 1-45. > Mikkelsen P. M. and R. Bieler, 1998. File clams and flame scallops in >the western Atlantic (Bivalvia: Limidae). Abstracts of the World Congress >of Malacology, Washington, DC 25-30 July 1998. Chicago, 1998. > > Harry > > > At 11:15 AM 1/27/01 -0500, you wrote: > >Hello Mr. Sim, > > > >In Picture #1, shell #1 is a Lima (family Limidae). You didn't say > >which coast of Mexico it is from. If it is from the Caribbean side, it > >is probably Lima lima (L.). If it is from the Pacific coast, it could > >be Lima tetrica Gould. > > > >Shell #2 is a "Calliostoma type" shell, not an actual Trochus, and > >certainly not a Bolma. It may be an Astele, possibly Astele bularra > >Garrard, but probably something else in that general category. > > > >Shell #3 appears to be Cuma lacera (Born). The detachment of the last > >whorl from the previous whorls is not a normal characteristic of the > >species, just a fluke of your specimen. > > > >Picture #2 - shows some of those terrestrial-type thingies. I'll pass. > > > >Picture #3 - Shell #P1 appears to be Chlamys macassarensis (Chenu). It > >could be Chlamys reevei (Adams & Reeve), which some authors consider to > >be a form of C. macassarensis. > > > >Shells #P2 and P3 both show markings and rib counts typical of Chlamys > >tranquebaricus (Gmelin), but in the picture they (especially P3) appear > >too inflated to be that species. It's hard to tell. The pictures are > >not clear enough. > > > >Shell #P4 appears to be Pecten (Gloripallium) pallium (L.), but from >the > >picture provided, I can't completely rule out Gloripallium speciosum >(Reeve) > > > >Regards, > >Paul M. > > > ********************************************************** > 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 .--. > \\(____)_ \\(____)_ \\(____)_ > `~~~~~~~` `~~~~~~~` `~~~~~~~` _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.