Paul Callomon wrote in response to this Conchler (whose name I have lost track of; my apologies): > I was very conformable calling all > in the family terebra until I read the "Living Terebras of the World" > and found they (authors Bratcher & Cernoohorsky) break the family into > the genera: Terebra, Duplicaria, Hastula (with subgenus Impages), and > Terenolla. They also list 41 or so previous genus and subgenus name > applied to this family. Katsura Oyama published several papers on the Terebras; the most accessible is in Venus (1961 : vol. 21 (2) : 176-189). I saw him give a talk on the family some years back, in which he divided them into genera based on the anatomy of the foregut and mouth. He raised dozens of genera for the Terebridae during his career, including Brevimyurella, Cinguloterebra, Clathroterebra, Decorihastula, Granuliterebra, Hastulopsis, Laeviacus and Pristiterebra. Anyone for whom Bratcher and Cernohorsky is not complicated enough should investigate Oyama's work. Personally, I prefer B&C. This is a good illustration of the usefulness of subgenera. If a taxonomist splits a big genus into dozens of subgenera on the basis of differences that cannot be seen without dissection of a live-collected specimen, then the shell collector can still use the old generic name (Terebra this, Terebra that) and the specialist is free to use the subgenera (Terebra (Subterebra) this, Terebra (Paraterebra) that). If the taxonomist insists on splitting the genus into dozens of genera, however, the shell collector (or even the specialist who is in a hurry or is holding a dead shell) is left with in very difficult situation. By the way, thanks to Paul Monfils, Ross Mayhew and others for interesting notes on how it feels to be a dealer. I'd like to read more about it. It's a different perspective. Andrew K. Rindsberg Geological Survey of Alabama