Hawaiian Conus - — KOHN 
391 
REMARKS: Specimens from Hawaiian popu- 
lations agree with the original figure and 
Broderip’s (1833) description of Conus nanus, 
which has not generally been considered a 
distinct species. A number of workers (Pease, 
1868; Tryon, 1884; Ostergaard, 1935; Tom- 
lin, 1937; Tinker, 1952) have considered C 
nanus to be not specifically distinct from 
C. ceylanensis. 
C. ceylanensis does not seem to be a well- 
known species. Specimens from many Indo- 
West Pacific localities in the U. S. National 
Museum and Museum of Comparative Zo- 
ology collections are indistinguishable from 
representatives of the Hawaiian populations 
under consideration. 
Examination of specimens from many Indo- 
West Pacific island groups in the U. S. Na- 
tional Museum, Museum of Comparative 
Zoology, and Academy of Natural Sciences 
of Philadelphia, and personal observations of 
the writer in the Marshall Islands led to the 
conclusions that the widespread C. sponsalis 
is also extremely variable and that there is 
sufficient morphological overlap with the Ha- 
waiian forms for the latter to be considered 
conspecific with C. sponsalis. However, since 
most Hawaiian specimens are morphologi- 
cally distinguishable from most specimens 
from other parts of the central and western 
Pacific, the Hawaiian populations may validly 
be accorded subspecific rank and termed C. 
sponsalis nanus Sowerby. 
Tryon (1884: 24), who was also uncertain 
of the distinction between C sponsalis and C. 
ceylanensis, considered C. nanus a variety of the 
latter in his arrangement but considered the 
possibility that both were varieties of C. 
sponsalis. Ostergaard (1935) also listed ^'Conus 
ceylonensis sponsalis,'' under which he stated, 
’T believe that this shell intergrades with C. 
ceylonensis Hwass and should therefore be 
termed a variety of that species, as Tryon 
places it.” 
Although the identity of C. ceylanensis re- 
mains problematical, the present writer is in- 
clined to agree that it is probably conspecific 
with C sponsalis. In this case, the name 
sponsalis has page priority, and there seems no 
reason why it should not take precedence 
over ceylanensis. It is hoped that collections in 
Ceylon and other Indian Ocean areas, to be 
made by the writer in the near future, will 
contribute towards a more definitive solution 
to this question. 
C. sponsalis is one of the most abundant 
species of Conus on intertidal benches in Ha- 
waii. Pleistocene fossils are known from Oahu 
(Ostergaard, 1928) and Molokai (Ostergaard, 
1939). 
Conus striatus Linne 
Fig. 5 in Plate 1 
Conus striatus Linne, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, 
p. 716. 
Cucullus striatus (Gmelin). Roding, 1798, 
Mus. Boltenianum, p. 50. 
Conus striatus Lamarck. Qtioy and Gai- 
mard, 1834, Voy. Astrolabe Zook, 3: 89, 
pi. 52, figs. 10, 10k 
Leptoconus striatus (Linne). Adams and Ad- 
ams, 1853, Gen. Rec. Moll., 1: 254. 
Tuliparia striata. Gray, 1857, Guide Moll. 
Brit. Mus., 1: 5. 
Conus floridus Sowerby, 1858, Thes. Conchyl., 
3: 47, frontispiece, fig. 558. 
Chelyconus striatus (Linne), Frauenfeld, 
1869, Verh. k.k. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien, 
19: 863. 
Conus tulipa Linne var. floridus Sowerby. 
Weinkauff, 1874, Jahrb. Deutsch. Malak. 
Ges., 1: 284. 
Phasmoconus striatus iflnnC). Cotton, 1945, 
Rec. South Austral. Mus., 8: 260. 
Dendroconus striatus (Linne) . Kuroda, 1955, 
Venus: Jap. Jour. Mai., 18: 292. 
DESCRIPTION: Shell large, rather thin, 
elongate-ovate, the maximum diameter not 
at the shoulder but about one fifth of the 
distance from shoulder to base. Body whorl 
with fine, closely spaced transverse striae; 
aperture broad, flaring gradually toward the 
base. Shoulder angular, smooth. Spire striate. 
