GerritM
New member
Hi (Don)!
Is my ID right, that this is a Pyrene tankervillei?
http://www.gastropods.com/0/Shell_21010.shtml
Is my ID right, that this is a Pyrene tankervillei?
http://www.gastropods.com/0/Shell_21010.shtml
Pyrene tankervillei ??
- Thread starter GerritM
- Start date
pagojoe
Team RC
Hi Gerritt,
Yes, very likely P. tankervillei, assuming the photos I can find are correctly identified. I must admit I don't know what the type specimen of this species looks like, though. There are a couple of similar species. Some of the popular literature has historically identified snails like yours as other species, but maybe only because the name P. tankervillei was somewhat obscure.
Cheers,
Don
Yes, very likely P. tankervillei, assuming the photos I can find are correctly identified. I must admit I don't know what the type specimen of this species looks like, though. There are a couple of similar species. Some of the popular literature has historically identified snails like yours as other species, but maybe only because the name P. tankervillei was somewhat obscure.
Cheers,
Don
GerritM
New member
Yes, its a cool looking snail.
Maybe I could compare they then.
Thanks Don. Which species do you exactly mean?
Maybe I could compare they then.
GerritM
New member
Hi Don!
Do you know what has validity?
WORMS says that Pyrene tankervillei is not valid, it is a Synonym for Pyrene obtusa.
http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=208019
But gastropods.com leads both species separately.
http://www.gastropods.com/0/Shell_21010.shtml
http://www.gastropods.com/4/Shell_7334.shtml
Do you know what has validity?
WORMS says that Pyrene tankervillei is not valid, it is a Synonym for Pyrene obtusa.
http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=208019
But gastropods.com leads both species separately.
http://www.gastropods.com/0/Shell_21010.shtml
http://www.gastropods.com/4/Shell_7334.shtml
pagojoe
Team RC
Hi Gerrit,
Yes, that's what I was hinting at in the previous post. Since neither you nor I (probably) have the resources to study these on the reef and at the molecular level, we are left to take another person's opinion on these matters. It becomes more difficult when two authorities disagree. Sometimes the "new" name is a result of a thorough revision of a family, but sometimes it's simply someone disagreeing with the current taxonomic trends. What you may find is that someone is 100% sure they are correct on the taxonomy of a snail, then a few years later the same person is 100% convinced that the taxonomy should be different. Even the experts may disagree, since not everything is black and white, whether you are analyzing shell and animal characteristics or comparing DNA.
I usually use the OBIS search for Indo-Pacific mollusc(k) taxonomy, and I consider it authoritative, even though it may be a work in progress. In this case, however, P. obtusa is listed as a valid species, but P. tankervillei is neither listed as a synonym nor as a valid species. This would normally only reflect the current taxonomic state based on the most recent expert opinion, so even authoritative sources are subject to change. All that said, Philippe Bouchet should have a very good idea whether these two species are the same, so you should be correct to call them all P. obtusa (for now). Be aware that there is even disagreement as to whether P. obtusa should be considered valid, so this might not be the final determination of either P. obtusa or P. tankervillei! Ultimately, it is up to you whose opinion you choose to follow, and you are just as correct as I if one of us uses the name P. tankervillei and the other uses P. obtusa (or P. testudinaria). I mostly choose to follow the most recently published taxonomic opinions if possible, but in some cases I feel strongly that published opinions may improperly assign genera or synonymy, and in those cases I may continue to use the "old" taxonomy.
Cheers,
Don
Yes, that's what I was hinting at in the previous post. Since neither you nor I (probably) have the resources to study these on the reef and at the molecular level, we are left to take another person's opinion on these matters. It becomes more difficult when two authorities disagree. Sometimes the "new" name is a result of a thorough revision of a family, but sometimes it's simply someone disagreeing with the current taxonomic trends. What you may find is that someone is 100% sure they are correct on the taxonomy of a snail, then a few years later the same person is 100% convinced that the taxonomy should be different. Even the experts may disagree, since not everything is black and white, whether you are analyzing shell and animal characteristics or comparing DNA.
I usually use the OBIS search for Indo-Pacific mollusc(k) taxonomy, and I consider it authoritative, even though it may be a work in progress. In this case, however, P. obtusa is listed as a valid species, but P. tankervillei is neither listed as a synonym nor as a valid species. This would normally only reflect the current taxonomic state based on the most recent expert opinion, so even authoritative sources are subject to change. All that said, Philippe Bouchet should have a very good idea whether these two species are the same, so you should be correct to call them all P. obtusa (for now). Be aware that there is even disagreement as to whether P. obtusa should be considered valid, so this might not be the final determination of either P. obtusa or P. tankervillei! Ultimately, it is up to you whose opinion you choose to follow, and you are just as correct as I if one of us uses the name P. tankervillei and the other uses P. obtusa (or P. testudinaria). I mostly choose to follow the most recently published taxonomic opinions if possible, but in some cases I feel strongly that published opinions may improperly assign genera or synonymy, and in those cases I may continue to use the "old" taxonomy.
Cheers,
Don
