Dear friends I agree in every aspect with Bill comments on this matter. Names become commonly used (misused should be more correct) without evaluating type specimens, original descriptions, etc. It is true that doing this for each taxa becomes a paramount detective work, but I am afraid that it is the only way to get closer to an answer. I have found myself a similar problem now that I am finishing a review on South African conidae: for instance, foir years Conus altispiratus became popular for referring to Conus gradatulus/patens, although the holotype clearly shows that altispiratus is in fact something different, most likely a freakish specimen of C. mozambicus! As for the DNA analyses, I am working closely on that matter, and I do not think that they will provide definitive answers to longtime queries as yet. Still working on the best markers for resolving differences among groups, and lot of work to be done yet on population genetics. On the contrary, these analyses might raise new (and very interesting) questions on Conidae phylogeny. Warmest regards to all Manuel Jimenez Tenorio Jerez, Cadiz, SPAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------