NEW YORK SHELL CLUB NOTES 
Page 4. June-July-Aug. 1979 No. 253 
RE: TAXONOMY 
(We give you here Mr. Janowsky's response t 
Motta which appeared in NOTES No. 252, PP- 
o the letter from Mr. da 
7-8.) 
Jan. 28, 1979 
Men de. Gavotte 
Bangkok, Thailand 
Dear Bob: 
Thank you for your letter of the 9th concerning my article, "Discord 
in Pacadimes | Tee appeared in the NYSC "Notes" #248. I am le 
if the impression that I conveyed in this article was that you name 
your new species of Conus in a frivolous manner. I am well aware of 
your truly excellent library and collection and of the great amount 
of time and expense that you have invested in your study of the 
Conidae. I would indeed be very pleased if you would allow me to 
correct the impression I may have created by permitting me to repro- 
duce your letter of the 9th and this my reply to you ina forthcoming 
issue of the same publication. 
While I am the first to admit that your working techniques and meth- 
odology are sound, I still am unable to accept your conclusions as 
to the validity of the species that you proposed. I did not compare 
your species, Conus chusaki da Motta, 1978 with Conus floridus Sow- 
erby, 1858 because it is indeed ny impression that C. floridus is a 
synonym of Conus striatus Linné, 1758. One would certainly not con- 
sider C. floridus as a valid species on the brief and somewhat un- 
distinguished original description -- and I am unaware of anyone 
holding it as a valid species today. 
Most certainly I have not studied this subject matter as closely as 
you have, and most certainly then my opinions do not and should not 
carry as much weight as yours should in this matter. I think that 
the basic disagreement that is between us in this issue is one that 
has plagued taxonomic workers from the beginning, we are unable to 
clearly state just what it is that constitutes a valid species or 
what it is that separates one species from another. I think that 
you, too, are very much aware of this problem since I note that you 
enclose with your letter the section on speciation from the Encyclo- 
pedia Britannica. Although this is a fairly well detailed concept 
in the Encyclopedia its practical limitations are manifold. Most 
certainly, what you consider might be a major difference in shells 
I might consider a minor difference or perhaps, since there are no 
clear standards, I might consider that there is not even a difference 
at all. We, at the very best, are here dealing in an inexact science. 
I take a very limited view of speciation, as you know I am a "lumper" 
of the first order and it is my belief that there are very few spe- 
cies of Conidae (or any family, for that matter) but that there is 
Within each species a great potential for variation in almost every 
aspect of its makeup. We are perhaps not so far apart in our views 
when I note your mention that Conus thailandis is a member of the 
Conus crocatus/lamberti complex -- I would indeed agree with that 
Statement with two minor points of exception: firstly, I am not fully 
: : 9 
certain that Conus lamberti Sowerby, 1877 should be considered as be- 
ing in the same complex of shells as C. crocatus and C. thailandis. 



