MOLLUSCA IN THE MaYA LoWLANDS 



fragments, sometimes estimating the number of 

 complete specimens represented by fragments, we 

 decided not to attempt this distinction in the tabula- 

 tions. The metric volume of our excavations, chosen 

 for elucidation of stratigraphic or architectural prob- 

 lems (and frequently to enlarge the sample of rare 

 ceramic forms), would almost never correspond to 

 any definable percentage of total occupational debris 

 which could make an estimate of the original 

 number of entire specimens significant. This same 

 volume is so insignificant in terms of the total 

 surrounding deposits that there would be little hope 

 of accuracy in attempting such an estimate. We have 

 usually not, therefore, overcomplicated the sum- 

 maries below by attempting to distinguish between 

 "complete" specimens and fragments which might 

 have been broken from them or matrices in nearby 

 deposits. Where the discovery of whole shells has 

 some significance in terms of votive, ornamental, or 

 dietary function, we have tried to include this in 

 the text. A precise record of each entire or broken 

 shell or fragment is on file with the Middle Ameri- 

 can Research Institute of Tulane University, for the 

 use of specialists desiring this information. 



It should be noted that, in the tabulations, num- 

 bers of pelecypods always refer to single valves unless 

 noted as pairs. 



Fuller descriptions and extra-peninsular distribu- 

 tions of most of the Atlantic molluscs discussed may 

 be found in Abbott (1954) and Warmke and Abbott 

 (1961). All Pacific species mentioned are described 

 in Keen (1958) and Olsson (1961, pelecypods only). 

 These comprehensive works ably define the larger 

 fauna which we only sample in our restricted area. 

 Where we have occasionally deviated from the ter- 

 minology used in such major studies, it has been 

 because of recent taxonomic revisions or new mate- 

 rial acquired locally. In this report, we have not 

 wished to overburden the reader with taxonomic 

 detail in justification of our identifications. If at 

 times we seem to the professional zoologist to have 

 presumed too much, may we ask provisional quar- 

 ter until our larger study of the modern collections 

 reaches print. 



It has long been customary in malacological liter- 

 ature intended for others than specialists in the field 

 to include the English popular name, despite the 

 fact that, in the true meaning of the word, most 

 shells do not have and never had popular names. 

 These have often been made up by the specialist, 



sometimes by simply translating the Latin bino- 

 mial (often with fascinating results, e.g. "Rigid 

 Venus"), sometimes by reversing it, sometimes by 

 using the name of the author of the species or the 

 person in whose honor it was named (e.g. "von Salis' 

 Triton," "Doc Bales' Ark"). In this area, of course, 

 popular names would have been in Spanish or 

 Maya. But normally differentiation of shells below 

 the generic level would be of interest only to the 

 malacologist. Terms of larger scope, usually of 

 generic or family stature, are useful for popular 

 identification. Therefore, we have, where feasible, 

 placed popular names in parenthesis after the family 

 headings; these are often descriptive of the particu- 

 lar genera listed in our area rather than of the family 

 as a whole. 



The following abbreviations indicate principal 

 sources of comparative material: 



C — Coe, 1959 



K — Kidder, 1947 



M — Moholy-Nagy, 1963 



M— MS — Moholy-Nagy, manuscript notes 



P — Proskouriakoff, 1962 



RR — Ricketson and Ricketson, 1937 



T — Thompson, 1939 



W — Willey and others, 1965 



