CONCHOLOGIA NUMBER FOUR A review ofRare and Unusual Shells of the Florida Keys and Adjacent Areas by Edward J. Petuch and Dennis M. Sargent, 2011 Richard E. Petit 806 St. Charles Road, North Myrtle Beach, SC [email protected] Rare and Unusual Shells of the Florida Keys Considering and the inconsistencies in the book, Adjacent Areas is the title of both a CD and a this absence may have been intentional. It is book authored by Edward J. Petuch and certainly irresponsible. Dennis M. Sargent. The differences in the Fifteen of the full page color Figures are two forms of what is basically, but not exact­ excellent photographs of ecological areas and ly, the same work will be discussed in an living mollusks in situ; three are simulated Appendix at the end of this paper as it may satellite views of Florida as it may have be helpful to those having the CD but not the looked at various times in the past; and 66 book. are figures of shells, some of which are fos­ The CD is dated 9 June 2011 and was sils. All six of the images on Figure 1.9 are sold at a Florida shell show later that month. reproduced on other Figures, making it Although the International Code of somewhat redundant. Not only are the same Zoological Nomenclature provides for the species figured, but the same figures are availability of nomina published on CD in reproduced. This makes it rather strange that Article 8.6, there is no indication on the CD Calliostoma adelae Schwengel, 1951 on Figure that it was intended to comply with that 1.9 (Figure D) is 15.8 mm in length, but on Article. As it does not meet the necessary Figure 2.7 (Figure C) it is 17.4 mm. Even provisions of the Code, the new names can­ stranger is the case of Melongena bicolor (Say, not date from the CD. The book, in hardcov­ 1827) on Figure 1.9 (figure E) at 33.6 mm er, was distributed on 9 July 2011 (Personal which changes to Melongena bicolor color communication from Robert Janowsky, pub­ form estephomenos Melvill, 1881 on Figure lisher), and the new names became available 3.25 (figure B) with a length of 32.4 mm. on that date. As the book is about living species that The book consists of 159 numbered are treated by geographic and ecological pages. Of those 159, four are devoted to the areas, it is unfortunate that maps of those title, contents, and dedication; five are index areas were not included instead of simula­ pages to the plates (confusingly labeled as tions of ancient topography. For example, Figures); two are pages about the authors; when reading about "deeper water areas of and one is blank (page 159). Of the remain­ the Hawk Channel" it would be nice to have ing 147 pages, 84 are full page Figures. There a map showing the location of the Channel. is no index for the text, which obviously Throughout the introductory portion "the makes it difficult to find discussions about, Florida Keys" is stressed, "Keys" appearing and descriptions of, the species included. eight times in the first two paragraphs. This PUBLISHED BY PRELUM CONTRA MUNDUM PO BOX 30. NORTH MYRTLE BEACH. SC 29597. USA CONCHOLOGIA INGRATA $ NO. 4 is slightly misleading, although the authors trary is presented, that is the effective date of define their area by stating that they cover publication of the Visaya paper. In addition to "the marine gastropod mollusks found from the species group names there is one new Naples (Collier County), through the Dry subgenus introduced in the Appendix. Tortugas and Florida Keys (Monroe County), In the period between 9 July and 21 and the northernmost Keys (Dade County), September, a paper, dated August 2011, was to Broward and Palm Beach Counties." They published by William P. Cargile in which he state that 61 families of macrogastropods are described Conus anabathrum antoni. This is covered, excluding those families with the same subspecies named Gradiconus tortu - species that do not average 5 mm in length. ganus Petuch & Sargent. Enclosed with the The great majority of included species are issue of Visaya was an undated form letter listed by coarse habitat types, but there are signed by Klaus Groh and Guido T. Poppe, no sources for the compiled information. publisher and owner of Visaya, respectively, In the Introduction it is stated, about the stating that "Shortly after printing the pres­ included descriptions of new species, that ent Visaya 3 (3), we got information that W. P. "we feei that this is a good educational tool; Cargile described C. antoni. This is the same demonstrating to both students and amateur species as the here described G. tortuganus. naturalists the procedures for naming a new However, afterwards Ed Petuch got extra animal." It is true that the descriptions meet information and he answered us the follow­ the absolute minimum requirements for a ing on the matter of these confusing Conus.” new name to be available, but they fall far Following that announcement is a long para­ short of malacological standards and would graph by Petuch which begins with: "The be unacceptable in a peer reviewed journal. pink Gradiconus specimens from the Dry These descriptions will be addressed later in Tortugas that were named G. tortuganus in this review. this paper are now known to be simply color The Introduction refers to the authors variants of the previously named G. having discovered that "eleven important anabathrum tranthami (Petuch, 1995)." There and beautiful gastropods were new to sci­ follows a lot of verbiage about the varieties ence" which are named in a Systematic of G. a. tranthami. It is interesting to speculate Appendix at the end of the book. A cursory as to whether or not this epiphany would review of the Appendix reveals that only have been made public had Cargile not pub­ eight species and one subspecies are lished his paper. In the Visaya article, described. Two species, Gradiconus tortuganus Gradiconus anabathrum tranthami is figured on and Jaspidiconus fluviamaris, are on Figure the same plate as G. tortuganus, the latter captions as of "Petuch & Sargent, 2011" but being given species status with considerable are not described. As they were not discussion being made about how it differs described until later, the appearance of these from G. a. tranthami. It appears that it was a names in the book must be treated as nomina good species for Petuch and Sargent but not nuda. For reasons unknown, the authors a good subspecies for Cargile. decided not to name these two species in the Throughout the book there are discus­ book but to put them in a larger Conidae sions about various species and forms as well paper in Visaya. The issue of that journal as much ecological data. There are no refer­ including their paper did not appear until ences to the source of such data or to the September. My issue, by subscription, was réintroduction of names previously placed in billed and mailed from the publisher on 21 synonymy by other authorsZaphrona ( taylo - September 2011. Unless evidence to the con- rae Petuch,Architectonica sunderlandi Petuch, TPAGF 2 CONCHOLOGIA INGRATA $ NO. 4 Modulus calusa Petuch, Oliva bifasciata Küster, As mentioned earlier, much of the book etc., etc.). The most egregious instance of consists of non-annotated, non-referenced, missing data is to be found on page 74 where lists of taxa occurring in various areas and the following is found: habitats with sections of comments, such as "Living ... on these deeper lagoon in the previous paragraph, separating them. sand bottoms is Adele's Nutmeg Shell, Explanations of why some of these names Cancellaria adelae Pilsbry, 1940 (Figure were used to the exclusion of others consid­ 3.18), a species endemic to the Florida ered by some authors to be senior synonyms Keys Reef Tract area. Like many mem­ should have been included. I would have bers of the genus Cancellaria, this pretty been interested in more data on the rare (in banded shell with a pink aperture is Florida) Bivetopsia rugosum [sic; = rugosa] actually a vampire, lying in wait for (Lamarck, 1822). The absence of the more Sting Rays to return to their daytime common Trigonostoma (Ventrilia) tenerum sleeping spots. Once the ray is settled in, (Philippi, 1848) raises concerns about other Cancellaria adelae inserts its long, thin, species that may have escaped inclusion. needle-tipped proboscis into the gili tis­ The "Bibliography" on page 141 consists sue and feasts on the Sting Ray's blood." of only 10 books, six of which are by Petuch. The authors give no details as to how this It is an understatement to call this list of ref­ information was obtained. Did they actually erences deficient. The reasons for these observe one of these rare shells engaged in works being singled out for citation can only such feeding? In my 40+ years of working be partially explained. Abbott (1974) is men­ with Cancellariidae, I have never seen a live tioned twice in discussions. Lee (2009) and collected specimen of C. adelae. As the food of Tunnell et al. (2010) are each mentioned once very few cancellariids is known, this infor­ where identification of a species is disputed. mation, if correct, should have been made Species described by Cate in 1973, 1976 and more widely known. It would have been a 1978 are listed, but none is discussed, and worthwhile subject for a paper in its own Cate is not quoted anywhere, his name right instead of just appearing as a comment appearing only as the author of species.