|
|
Hammershell
1. There is no population in which only rostrate or melanistic shells occur, and normal shells are absent.
2. There is locally a gradual passing from normal shells to sub-rostrate and rostrate ones; Cernohorsky estimated (by letter)
the relative frequency of these stages in Mauritia eglantina Duclos in Mondoure Bay as about 30: 5: 1.
3. Rostration and melanism often occur in the same specimen, but they are not always linked.
4. Localities from which such shells are known, may be scattered over the whole region inhabited by the species, but they
evidently are concentrated in certain smaller areas.
5. The tendency to become rostrate or melanistic differs, as certain species seem not to be susceptible at all or at least
less susceptible to rostration and melanism than other species.
There seems to be no predominance of any sex in rostrate cowries; the radula evidently does not differ from that of normal
specimens.
Certain specific names are persistently used in literature, despite their invalidation by the I.C.Z.N. some 10 years ago. As
I was one of the culprits in using two invalid names in my Catalogue of Living Cypraeidae, I thought it advisable to make the
necessary corrections.
By opinion 261 (published 10th August, 1954), the work of L. T. Gronovius, Zoophylacium Gronovianum, 3 parts, 1763 - 1781,
and F. C. Meuschen's Index to Gronovius' work from 1781, have been rejected as non-binominal. This will invalidate the
following names:
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!
hammershell,conus stratus,hammer shells,natural fashion jewelry,trocca,toribellum,products,shells necklace,leis shellcrafts,hammershell
Hammershell troca male shell necklaces casis cornuta paua shell jewelries capiz hanging lamps murex zamboi cyprea lynx hawaiian jewelry shells jewelry oliva conus sowerby black agate ethnic shell monggo shell philippine shells jewelry.
hammershell
Shells
Jewellery
|
