Notes for the Checklist of Living Conidae
(To Return to Checklist, just close window)
0) Since many cone species are extremely variable and local varieties and forms often occur, taxonomic assignment of many named taxa is often in doubt: (indicated by question marks (?) in front of a particular taxa.) some will say "This is a full species (or subspecies or distinct/distinguishable form)", while others will disagree. The assignments below are based upon the most recent literature for the most part, but there are still many disagreements excisting. If you don't see a specific taxa you are expecting it to be, just use the search function on your browser (under "edit" usually), and you can find it that way. PLEASE NOTE that no effort has been made to include all of the many synonyms and invalid names proposed for Conus species since 1758. The ones included are those still in use by some collectors and shell dealers, in order to rectify some of the confusion surrounding these names. Genera: Many schemes have been devised to split this 700+ species family into a number of different genera - indeed, you will note below that not a few cones were assigned to various genera in their initial. That said, as Paul Callomon (pers. Comm.) points out, none of these proposals is entirely satisfactory: each use different criterion for their sundry divisions: shell morphology, reproductive details, gastronomic preferences and radulae...... we thought it preferable to maintain the standard convention of treating the family as being mono-generic for the time being, given the general lack of disagreement on this point. Nevertheless, we include the genus names under which each species was origonally described, for the sake of "taxonomic accuracy". Nominate Forms: There is a major error or inadequacy which this and almost all similar documents posess, which we will hopefully correct at a later date. Where there are trinomials (forms or subspecies) present for a given species, the nominative form - i.e. the form of the species which was originally described and used as the type specimen - is in all cases except Conus milneedwardsi Jousseaume 1894, confounded with the species as a whole - the range and maximum size given is for the species as a whole, and not just the nominative form. The relevant portion of the milneedwardsi entry is reproduced below, as and example of the way each such species SHOULD be treated!!
Conus milneedwardsi Jousseaume 1894 - Glory of India Cone (Image Paul Kersten) - this specimen is from Mozambique: hence it is the nominative form: Conus milneedwardsi milneedwardsi Jousseaume 1894)
Species as a whole:
Distribution: Indian Ocean: Natal to Red Sea
Maximum size: 180 mm
Conus milneedwardsi milneedwardsi Jousseaume 1894 (Image Paul Kersten)
Nominate form (a subspecies):
Distribution: KwaZulu Natal to Red Sea (Holotype
from Gulf of Aden)
Maximum size: 170 mm
See also: http://www.gastropods.com/7/Shell_1647.html - The first three photos are the nominative form, while the fourth, from "Nathalie", is the clytospira Melvill & Standen subspecies.
2) "Formatting": For the sake of consistancy and as an aid to those quickly using this document, we have developed a set of formats for presenting types of information which occur repeatedly. These include:
: Conus bandanus f. mozoii Melvin & Melvin 1980 - Forms are designated as such, in the name of the taxa.
: Conus biraghii omanensis Moolenbeek & Coomans 1993 - Subspecies are presented as a strict trinomial with no insertions.
: Conus excelsus Sowerby 1908 - Illustrious Cone (Image Paul Kersten) - The "primary" entry for taxa we consider full species, are presented in a larger font size, so they stand out.
: (Conus acuminatus Hwass 1792) - Junior synonyms and invalid/"unavailable" taxa such as incertae cedis (doubtful status) and nomen oblitum (erased or "obliterated" name) are placed in brackets to indicate they are not to be used to refer to a valid taxa.
: ?? Conus philippii Kiener 1845 (Image from Gene Mallory's Site) - Question marks in front of a taxa indicate uncertainty or debate regarding its status or taxonomic placement. The number of "?"s is roughly indicative of the degree of uncertainty.
3) Subspecies, forms & synonyms: A subspecies is a well-defined form which has a different geographic range from the nominate form of the species, and has "official" status. Althouhgh "forms" and "varieties" have no official standing according to the ICZN (International Committee of Zoological Nomenclature), most collectors use them as a short-hand tag to differentiate variants which can be reliably and consistantly separated from the nominative form of a given species. Forms which represent local populations not large enough to be considered a subspecies, as well as ecologically-determined variants (such as deep-water forms) may differ substantially from the nominative form, while other named forms or varieties may represent nothing more than color forms (the beautiful yellow form of amadis Gmelin, for example, has been given the name aurantia Dautzenberg, 1937.) We have tried to track down and give the basis for differentiating the great majority of named forms, and to note where they are "weak" or particularly robust (as in the amadis form commonly called "schech", which may be a genetically distinct sub-population). It should be noted that some scientists such as Filmer does not "go out of their way" to do this in many cases, so when they assign a taxa to the synonmy of a particular species, this does not preclude it from actually being a "valid" form, consistantly distinguishable from all other forms.
4) The images below are from various sources as credited. The taxonomy of most of the list was carefully researched by Paul Kersten with the aid of the most recent literature and input from various regional researchers such as Bruno Besse, Mike Filmer, Phil Crandall and Manuel Tenorio, who has also been of much assistance for the West African & ever-growing Cape Verde clan. We wish to thank Giancarlo Paganelli for his images, literature and translations, John Tucker for providing us with literature, images and comments and Alexander Medvedev for his pictures.
References: MONTEIRO, A.,
TENORIO, M. J. & POPPE, G. T., 2004. The Family Conidae. The West African and
Mediterranean species of Conus
RöCKEL, D., KORN, W. & KOHN, A. J., 1992. Manual of the Living Conidae.
Volume 1: Indo-Pacific Region
R.M. FILMER, 2001. A Catalogue of Nomenclature and Taxonomy in the Living Conidae
1758 - 1998
The images from Gene Mallory's excellent site (he kindly permitted us to use his base compilation of living Conus species and forms as the starting point for this list) are from a variety of sources but mostly his own collection.
3) We also wish to thank the many people who have contributed in various ways, for example through comments and observations regarding the list itself (a bit hazardous to try and name them all, lest we leave some folks out!), and to Laverne Lambert, who spent quite a bit of time and effort in the early stages of the project getting things in order!
5) Most of the "maximum sizes" are taken from Mr. Mallory's site for now. When we get the most recent copy of the Registry of World Record Sizes we'll modify these accordingly.
6) This will always be a "work in progress". Therefore, If you see any errors or omissions we would be very grateful if you would get involved and point them out to us (email link) so we can make this list a more comprehensive and useful resource.
7) If you the viewer have or wish to make images of Conus specimens which are better or significantly different from the images presented below we would be VERY glad to receive them - the more the merrier!! The primary charm of the Conidae is their almost infinite variation, so the more of it we can show here, the better.
8) The following taxa still do not have illustrations thus far. If you can be of assistance in this respect, your contributions will be gladly received!!
Conus anabathrum f. tranthami Petuch 1995
Conus aureonimbosus Petuch 1987
Conus biraghii f. congruens (Korn & G. Raybaudi M. 1993)
Conus pacei Petuch 1987
Conus spectrum f. dolium Boivin 1864
Conus velaensis Petuch 1992
Conus visseri Delsaerdt, 1990
8a) Quite a few other taxa have only one or two photos (example: Conus anabathrum f. floridensis Sowerby 1870). We would be more than happy to receive more photos of these, in addition to the few "orphan" taxa above.
Sincerely yours,
(To Return to Checklist, just close window)