Page 6 January 1 No. 248 NEW YORK SHELL CLUB NOTES 
k. The writer 
danger and disservice resulting from this kind of wor 3 
vao are doing this type of work have not, I feel, adequately re- 
searched their subject and have in a great number of instances cre- 
ated needless and useless taxonomic:,entities which unfortunately 
must stand as part of the literature. I really do not believe that 
there is any necessity for giving : new mete mpenretes vce 2% 
jatus. lLinne.esta 8 
spate oe eee Noase ear co ince me that a shell differing in 
shell in 1758. No one can conv 
only a very few respects from what we know as Conus striatus re- 
quires a different name. 
I will just briefly point out the flimsy support that is given to 
"prove" the "new species." We read: "It differs slightly in shape 
greatly in color from what we call Conus striatus Linne. It also 
has a different texture." And, in case you are not already convinc- 
ed, the clincher is that "the soft parts of the animal are of a 
different color." It is not too difficult to refute all of the a- 
bove points with only the simplest of arguments. Many times we find 
vast differences in the same species of shells in size, color, and 
texture. Anyone familiar with shells can, with a little thought, 
put together a sizable list of shells of the same species which for 
all practical purposes do not resemble one another. Do you want 
better examples of this than the prosaic Melongena corona Gmelin 
1791, or the equally varied Thais lamellosa o e same author, or, 
closer to the issue at hand, Conus magus Linne, 1758? I can not 
here get into the subject as to why these marine shells vary so 
greatly, -- whether the variations are caused by factors in the mol- 
usk's environment or in its genetic makeup is not the issue; suf- 
fice it to realize that shell structure can vary greatly in a given 
species. One need only look around to put down for all time the 
point that the animal differs in color. Are not color differences 
quite common in nature, in plants and animals including our own spe- 
cies Homo sapiens? Why, then, must a species of shell be restricted 
to only one color animal? We always seem to get into difficulties 
when we try to impose our own narrow views on living things that 
conform to natural laws that we do not completely understand. 
The illustrated specimens do not represent the most flagrant example 
of taxonomic "manhandling" that has occurred in the past few years. 
I reserve that distinction for two contemporary authors who are cur- 
rently in contention as to which of them first named a "new species" 
gr Conus which is pe — a rather well known (but hitherto unnamed) 
orm of Conus mercator nne, 1758. Rather, I choose e Conus 
crocatus Lamarck, 1810 as an example because it isa sheets tha 
as been much in evidence in the other shell journals of late. ‘The 
slender form with the greater amount of markings on its body whorl 
is quite typical of what we expect of this species. The species has 
traditionally been a rare one, but one that has been reported from 
a great number of localities including the Philippines, Samoa, the 
Solomon Islands and New Caledonia. Last year divers working with 
pegkes rigs (i.e. a setup where air is pumped to the diver by a sur- 
fv Set eas badd Sago a flexible hose) in the waters off 
P » began to find speci i 
wide-shouldered specimen pictured Sone. “Tnmediately ooaeeat hue and 
tile tee es ee hai rag When the pote g similari- 
Somewhat m F 
tus was pointed out, the shell next became Conus Llamnerti Seurerble, 
