|
|
Cyprea moneta
A comparison of specimens of C. chinensis from Philippines and Fiji are for the time being scientifically meaningless, as
only 2 specimens have been found in Fiji so far. However, it should be mentioned that these two specimens are as broad as
Philippines ones, are also calloused at the margins, denticulate on the fossula, have a curved posterior aperture, and the
marginal spots are deep violet. They agree with Cate's illustration of Hypotype No. 3 in The Veliger. I agree with Crawford
Cate that C. chinensis, sensu stricto can be easily separated from specimens of C. chinensis from Philippines (and at the
same time from specimens from Fiji, Australia and Mauritius on account of its rather elongated form, narrower width,
straighter aperture and consistently more numerous teeth. At the same time, however, specimens of violacea, variolaria,
sydneyensis and amiges show in actual fact so little difference and are so variable within each subspecies, that they could
be consolidated into one subspecies.
To sum up: The variation of C. chinensis known as amiges should never have been resurrected, because it does not have
sufficient and constant characteristics of its own to warrant separation. Specimens of amiges if unmarked and without
locality data attached, could not be separated from the (2) known Fiji specimens, nor from certain specimens from Mauritius.
It is interesting to note that certain species of Cypraea from the islands in the central Indian ocean bear a closer
resemblance to the same species from Melanesia and Polynesia, than they do to the same species in the Philippines and
Australia.
Synopsis: In the preceding two installments, I told of the first recorded microscopic examination made of the stomach of the
animal of Cypraea aurantium, by Dr. Alison Kay, General Science Dept., University of Philippines, how the shell had been
collected on order by F. E. Lahora off the Southern Philippines, and I attempted to establish the western and eastern limits
of the range of this species.
It might be well to state at this point that the information I am using was obtained in personal letters from collectors in
areas in question, in personal interviews, and from well-authenticated stories that appeared in the Philippines Shell News
during the last six or seven years.
In attempting to establish the northern and southern limits of the range of this shell, many inconsistencies develop which
have yet to be satisfactorily explained. Future researchers will probably settle this, but I believed that the ocean currents
and the physical contour of the ocean bottom may be the answer, as will be shown later. One fact, however, has been pretty
definitely established. It is that no Golden Cowries have ever been collected more than 13 degrees north or south of the
equator. It is believed that the temperature of the water is the controlling factor. If you are skeptical about this
statement, take a map of the Pacific Ocean and stick pins in all the localities where the Golden Cowry have been found and
the pattern will soon develop. There will be no pins either north or south of a strip centered on the equator and about 25
degrees wide.
But returning to the inconsistencies mentioned above, let's look at a few examples.
Why is C. aurantium not found in New Caledonia yet is collected in the Loyalty Islands less than 50 miles away? Why are they
not found in the New Hebrides even though these Islands lie almost on a line between Fiji and the Solomons, both of which are
known to produce them? Why are they not found in the Line Islands of Jarvis, Palmyra et al, which practically straddle the
equator? The temperature could hardly be a factor concerning them. These apparent exceptions will be discussed in detail
hereafter but I'll tell you now it is only one man's opinion and he's not a scientist!
The year 1758 marked the beginning of a whole new era of systematic enlightenment. Linnaeus introduced for the first time an
orderly arrangement for the animal kingdom, among them the mollusca in general and the Cypraea in particular. He enunciated
the first acceptable principles for defining species and genera, and this, with his suggestion for a simple binomial
nomenclature, resulted in the first systematic arrangement to enable workers to sort their material in a logical manner.
Linnaeus' famous work, Systema Naturę (10th edition) first fixed the taxonomy of the Cypraeidae in a way that made sense; the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature uses this work as the starting point for name priority in all animal
groups.
With this starting point in mind, subsequent work on the Cypraea can be traced through the literature in fairly definite
stages: the first stage is evidently the study of local populations; the second, the acceptance of possible environmental
influences, and the third would be the study of species and races in a broader sense. These are the essential stages to be
considered in the study of any shell family group.
After Linnaeus, many other naturalists contributed their work to subsequent volumes. Gmelin 1789-1791 is the author of the
13th Edition of Linnaeus' earlier work; he revised it by adding many new species and enlarging the bibliographic references.
Gmelin mentioned a total of 114 species of Cypraea.
cyprea moneta,paua,silver mouth,temriata,hair,puka shell jewelry,strombus canarium,supplier,troca female pearlized,cyprea moneta
Cyprea moneta sea urchin hair ornaments black olive cockle pearls shell necklace pukalet heishi shell anklets crafts rose clam lambis cheragra casis bandatum black pen squarecutrs troca strawberry heishe pokalet strombus sinautus conus.
cyprea moneta
Shells
Jewellery
|
