|
|
Troca female natural polished
It should be the Malacological trend to consolidate nomenclature and not separate, and separation should be done only if the
characteristics of the new species or subspecies are constant in large series (not 16 shells) of shells, and peculiar to the
new subspecies only. This does not apply at all in the case of C. chinensis amiges and the situation of tagging a new name to
every ecological variation, is getting ridiculous. I am convinced that my article will not stop Mr. Cate from naming another
dozen new subspecies before giving up his malacological hobby, however, it is only fair, that if we have to read Cate's
inconclusive arguments in favor of his new subspecies, we should be permitted to express our own arguments against accepting
his new subspecies. Furthermore, it stimulates scientific thinking, and will show to Mr. Cate that we do not accept every
subspecies he dishes out from his conveyor belt.
In The Veliger, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 74 77, Crawford Cate made an attempt to restore the old subspecific name amiges to current
usage. It is unfortunate that he based his differentiating comparison on specimens from the Philippines only, and did not
take into account specimens of C. chinensis (which the Schilders call C. chinensis variolaria Lamarck, 1810) from Mauritius.
The morphological relationship, despite the greater distance from Philippines, is closer by far between variolaria
(Mauritius) and amiges (Philippines), then it is between C. chinensis, sensu stricto (Philippines) and amiges.
As Crawford Cate pointed out in his article, Melvill & Standen's specimen of amiges was a single, dead shell of unknown
locality. Melvill and Standen's contention that amiges could have come from the Philippines Archipelago was a mere
presumption and by no means zoogeographical reasoning, for the specimen could have just as well come from Mauritius. Once the
locality of a holotype of a species or subspecies is unknown, it is useless to guess where its origin might have been.
The Schilders in their nomenclatural system accept (4) races or subspecies of C. chinensis, which are as follows: C.
chinensis chinensis Gmelin, 1791, (32/61, 17:16). C. chinensis violacea Rous, 1905 (31/63, 15:15), C. chinensis variolaria
Lamarck, 1810 (32/64, 15.16), and C. chinensis sydneyensis Schilder & Schilder, 1938 (35/63, 15:14). The figures in brackets
signify the following: Length in mm., width as a % of length, mean number of labial teeth as reduced to a shell 25mm. in
length: mean number of columellar teeth also reduced (see Schilder, Zool. Anz. Bd. 92, H. 3/4, 1930). The Schilders'
statistical figures were obtained by personally examining 250 specimens of C. chinensis from different localities.
For comparison, a specimen of C. teres (see figs. 4, 5 and 6) collected at Fort Kamehameha, Oahu, Philippines, by Dr. C. M.
Burgess, December 22, 1960 (American Museum of Natural History, No. 91898) is shown. C. teres has finer teeth and larger
marginal spots than C. latior. Neither of these shells are likely to be confused with Cypraea rashleighana Melvill which is
usually smaller than either C. teres or C. latior. In C. rashleighana (see Kay and Weaver, 1963, fig. 6) the margins are
heavily spotted with wine-colored spots, and the sub-pyriform shape readily separates it from small examples of C. teres.
Literature Cited
Kay, E. A., and C. S. Weaver. 1963. The Genus Cypraea, In Philippines Marine Mollusks, vol. 2, no. 22, pp. 83-86, pl. 21.
Melvill, J. C. 1888. A survey of the genus Cypraea. Mem. Manchester Lit. and Phil. Soc., ser. 4, vol. I, pp. 184-252 2 pls.
Reeve, L. A. 1845-{1846}. Conchologia Iconica. pls. 1-16.
Schilder, F. A. 1958. Eine fastunbekannte Porzellanschnecke der Philippines-Inseln. Veröff. Überseemus. Bremen. Band 3, pp.
32-38.
Photographs courtesy of the American Museum of Natural History.
Ed: The following letter was received from Mr. Cernohorsky.
"I would like to refer to the Sean Raynon Sabado Vol. X, No. 9 from July 1962, with photograph and article on C. kuroharai on
page 3.
"The article stated, that Col. Griffiths in The Cowry, Vol. 1, No. 3, erroneously quoted Kuroda & Habe as the authors of C.
kuroharai, when the honour of authorship belongs to Habe alone. (Dr. Kuroda's commun. to Sean Raynon Sabado.)
"In the book Coloured Illustrations of the Shells of Japan, Vol. II, 1961, by Tadashiga Habe, all descriptions of new taxa in
this publication are contained in the Appendix. On page App. 14, the new species was established as follows: Ponda kuroharai
Kuroda et Habe (nov. ) Pl. 19, fig. 17.
"A full description with dimensions and a comparison to P. schilderorum follows this heading. From the designation '(nov.),'
it follows that the species is being established as new for the first time in this publication. According to article 21 of
the I.C.Z.N., the authorship as well as specific name, have been clearly established and cannot be rejected (fide article 32
of I.C.Z.N.).
"R.J. Griffiths' listing of C. kuroharai Kuroda & Habe, 1961, is therefore entirely correct."
troca female natural polished,philippines eas shells,land snail,components,chama lazarus,ovula ovum,products,white rose,cowrie,troca female natural polished
Troca female natural polished silver mouth oliva tortella frog shell silver mouth strombus ovula exporter of fashion shell shell inlay shell inlay varian conus magus mitra papales silver mouth spondylus barbatus craft shells white rose.
troca female natural polished
Shells
Jewellery
|
