NEW YORK SHELL CLUB NOTES No. 234 September 1977 Page 7 
cific, subspecies or separate species is another matter!) 
Nevertheless, there are certain areas in which th 
that objective and valid criticism is warranted, reat ee 
1% While purporting to be a comprehensive survey of the Muricidae, 
a considerable number of validly introduced names are completely ig- 
nored, including some which are not very obscure. For example, Murex 
tribulus Linne 1758 is considered to include ternispina Lamarck T822, 
aduncospinosus Beck in Sowerby 1841, nigrispinosus Reeve 1845, and 
carbonnieri Jousseaume 1881 as synonyms. (this will strike many 
dealers and collectors, and perhaps some students of the family, as 
a regression to the time of Linnaeus.) But what of M. crassispina 
Lamarck 1822, M. concinnus Reeve 1845 and M. acanthostephes Gatecn 
1883? Are they also Synonyms of M. tribulus? e are no old, and 
they are not listed as “incertae Sedis™ on page 217. 
26 ~.ne descriptions of species, while consistent and largely ade- 
quate, contain few comparative remarks, few explanatory statements 
and little, if any, reference to the work or opinions of other stu- 
dents of the family. Space limitations, presumably, dictated this 
approach, in part, but the reviewer, for one, gets an impression of 
"take it or leave it" and inevitably wonders, for example, if holo- 
types have been compared, how many specimens have been examined, why 
certain decisions have been made, etc. 
3, The illustrations are, for the most part, excellent and typical, 
but those of some of the smallest species are reproduced at a size 
which makes their use for identification all but impossible. Inci- 
dentally, Plate 17, figure 3 is almost certainly Siratus formosus 
Sowerby, rather than S. articulatus Reeve, and Plate 23, figure 14 
is almost certainly an unusually Large specimen of Muricopsis 
cristatus Brocchi, as stated on page 167, rather than M. biatnviliei 
Payraudeau as on page 166 and in the plate legend. 
4, Finally, one gets a very definite impression of inconsistency 
in treatment. There is considerable "lumping" in some of the larger 
and better-known genera (Murex s.s. is an example) but a tendency 
in the other direction in some of the smaller genera, particularly 
Aspella. Also, some rather similar species groups -- Siratus 
cailleti-perelegans, Siratus senegalensis-tenuivaricosus, Phylilo- 
notus pomum-peratus-margaritensis, are maintained as separate spe- 
cies, while others with seemingly as great differences -- Siratus 
senegalensis-springeri, Murexiella humilis-laurae-keenae, Murex 
elenensis-lividus, and others, are synonymized. The latter state- 
ments are, of course, subjective, and open to argument. 
The reviewer offers the foregoing criticisms with a certain amount 
of doubt, in some cases. There is, however, little doubt that the 
book will result in controversy, or that it will, in spite of dif- 
ferences of opinion, be a useful reference work to hundreds of col- 
lectors, students and researchers in the field of malacology. 
Cea 
Acct Director, 554 
Springfield Science Museum 
Springfield, Massachusetts 
