Return to ListType Specimen


007490

007491

M013914

M013221

i17028
Awaiting Image006000_007999/Web/jpegs/007490.jpg

Conus aulicus form propendus Melvill, 1900

Gastropoda : Conoidea : Conidae
Current Name: Conus aulicus Linnaeus, 1758
[WoRMS: 215471]
Type Status: Syntypes (Holotype?)
Collection: Melvill-Tomlin
Accession No.: NMW.1955.158.00039
Preparations: Dry shells
No. of Specimens: 2 sh
Locality: No locality.
Collecting Details: (ex.Coll.) J. C. Melvill

References


Reference
Citation
Reference available
Melvill, J. C. 1900. A revision of the textile cones, with description of C. cholmondeleyi n.sp. Journal of Conchology. 9(10): 303-311; text fig. [310] Cited
Original Description
Type Designation

request
Trew, A. 1987. James Cosmo Melvill's New Molluscan Names. National Museum of Wales, Cardiff. 1-84pp [59] Cited
Röckel, D., Korn, W., & Kohn, A. J. 1995. Manual of the Living Conidae Vol. 1: Indo-Pacific Region. Verlag Christa Hemmen, Wiesbaden, Germany. 517pp; 84 pls [287] Cited
request

Detailed Locality

Verbatim Locality
Label & Melvill, 1900: No locality given.
Point Locality: No locality.
Country:
Station:
Grid ref./Coordinates:
Region:
Sea Region:
Altitude:
Depth:
Expedition:
Ex. Collection: J. C. Melvill
Collecting date:
Collected by:

Classification

Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Superfamily
Family
Animalia Mollusca Gastropoda
Subclass: Prosobranchia
Neogastropoda Conoidea Conidae

Remarks

There is some confusion with the status of this lot. In the collection there was a single specimen (8.8cm) labelled as a holotype by my predecessor with an associated Melvill ‘type’ label for this variety. Next to this specimen there was a larger shell (11.6cm) with ‘aulicus’ written on it by Melvill and another Melvill ‘type’ label stating aulicus v. propendus (’type’ is written in pencil). This second specimen had not been databased or remarked on but it does have the bare white tract of v. propendus as described by Melvill.

Melvill’s original description does not suggest that a single specimen was used and does not figure this variety so I can only conclude that the specimens are of equal status and represent a syntype series. The smaller specimen has however been cited as a holotype in
Röckel et al (1995).

Record last modified - 27/06/2018