Betty Jean wrote: <Are there such things as dwarfs in the molluscan world, and among these dwarfs are there both females and males?> Let me address the second question first - I don't know. If any research has been done on this, I'd be interested to hear about it. As for the existence of "dwarfs" in the molluscan world, there certainly are occasional specimens which qualify as "dwarfs" by conchological standards. A dwarf, as usually defined in conchological circles, is a specimen which is (1) a fully mature adult representative of the species AND (2) "substantially" smaller in overall dimensions than the low end of the "usual" adult size range for the species. (This is my own definition, carefully developed and repeatedly updated over the last two minutes or so - but I think it incorporates the usual thinking among those of a conchological bent). This is a considerably looser definition than that employed in mammalian (including human) biology, where dwarfism is a well understood physiologic condition with well defined causes. Also, this definition necessarily incorporates some rather imprecise terms, since molluscan "dwarfism", from the collector/dealer point of view, is defined only in terms of size, not underlying causes - and there are no clearcut rules or guidelines indicating how small a specimen has to be to qualify as a "dwarf". I have seen a good number of the little Cypraea cervinetta Betty Jean mentioned. I have had some that measured 30-32 mm. I think those qualify as "dwarfs". Others were 40-45 mm. Dwarfs? Probably. How about 50-55 mm? Hmmmm?? Actually, I have seen fully mature Cypraea cervinetta in every possible size from 30 mm to over 100 mm. There is no size gap separating "dwarfs" from non-dwarfs, so dwarfs are simply those that fall below the line, wherever you choose to draw it. That brings us to the other essential criterion - before you can call a specimen a "dwarf", you have to be certain that it is a fully mature, full grown specimen, because children are a lot smaller than adults in the mollusk world, just as in the human world. This is frequently not as easy as it might sound. I tend to think of three general patterns of growth in shelled mollusks. I'm sure there are countless variations within each pattern, but I'm trying to keep this simple. Pattern 1 - the lip of the shell is "simple", that is smooth and relatively thin, throughout the life of the animal (Naticidae, Trochidae, Turbinidae, Ficidae, Bullidae, most Conidae). Pattern 2 - the lip is simple during growth phases, but becomes greatly thickened into a "varix" during non-growth stages (Muricidae, Cymatiidae, Harpidae, Cassidae, Tonnidae) Pattern 3 - the lip is simple throughout the life of the animal, until it is fully mature, at which point a one-time transformation into an "adult" form occurs, followed by little or no overall increase in size (Cypraeidae and their relatives - Triviidae, Ovulidae; Strombidae and their relatives - Aporrhaiidae, Struthiolariidae). A variation of this pattern is species in which the lip is thin until maturity, then becomes greatly thickened, as in Turbinellidae, many Volutidae, and some Conidae. Usually, the only species in which "dwarfs" can be reliably identified are those with growth pattern #3. In these species, a mature specimen is immediately distinguishable from an immature (subadult, juvenile) specimen, irrespective of size. A 40 mm Strombus raninus with a fully developed lip is a mature specimen, and - perhaps? - a dwarf; an 80 mm specimen without a mature lip is a juvenile. In the other two groups, dwarfs may exist, but if so, they would look just like the juvenile specimens of the species. No shell dealer would offer a 50 mm Conus gloriamaris as a "dwarf". It would simply be assumed to be a juvenile. On the other hand, a 50 mm Cypraea cervus with mature form and pattern would immediately be listed as a dwarf (immediately after attaching a hefty price tag that is, indicative of the rarity of such a specimen). This doesn't mean that the 50 mm Conus gloriamaris is not a dwarf! It just means there is no way of knowing, so we assume the most likely explanation to be the correct one. And anyone who offers ANY non-gastropod mollusk as a "dwarf" is definitely venturing onto thin ice! Can you imagine? Dwarf Tridacna gigas - only 300 mm! Paul M.