Conus amadis castaneofasciata f. schech, Weinkauff 1875

Click a picture to enlarge Use F11 for more confort

Prev <=> Next

Conasprella (Ximeniconus) amadis amadis var. neptunus (Kiener, 1843)

Conus amadis castaneofasciata f. schech arrivé de Thaïlande par hasard. Il est arrivé avec un Conus zonatus que j' avais acheté, mais pas lui. Erreur ou charmante attention du vendeur??? Je ne sais mais je ne l' avais pas. Cette appellation est une invention de vendeur. Le Conus schech (Weinkauff, 1875) existe bien mais est un synonyme de Conus locumtenens (Blumenbach, 1791) endémique de la Mer Rouge (Félix Lorenz). Taille: 44 mm.

Conus amadis castaneofasciata f. schech arrived from Thailand by chance. He arrived with a Conus zonatus that I had purchased, but not him. Errors or charming attention of the seller?? I do not know but I had it not. This name is an invention of the seller. The Conus schech (Weinkauff, 1875) exists but is a synonym of Conus locumtenens (Blumenbach, 1791) endemic to the Red Sea Size: 44 mm.

Voici ce qu' en disait le Dr. Röckel en November 1978 dans HAWAIIAN SHELL NEWS

By DIETER ROCKEL

DARMSTADT - Not long ago I received a very interesting cone from the Bay of Bengal, bearing the name ''Conus schech Jickeli." My subsequent attempt to verify the name led me to a prize example of "conus confusion. " My new shell closely resembled western Thailand's castaneofasciatus Sowerby in shape, but differed distinctly in color and pattern. Except foc an interrupted white band in the middle of the last whorl, it is almost uniformly dark red-brown. The lower part is a lighter shade of the same color. Along the spire edge is a white band, very small, crossed by irregular brown lines. The spire is the same color, with whitish half-moon dots. My own collection includes a shell called Conus schech from an old collection. Naturally, I took the opportunity to compare it with my new acquisition. The two were not at all alike! My efforts to clear up the seeming discrepancy led me into a wonderland of taxonomic contradictions. Although I believe I now understand the history of this bit of Conus Confusion, I am not sure that anyone is any better off!

Point One: The name "Conus schech Jickeli" apparently was never validly proposed. Carl F. Jickeli, the Austrian zoological explorer of the mid-nineteenth century, bought two unusual cones from local fishermen on the Dahlak Islands during his Red Sea expedition. He described them under the name of "Conus schech" in an unpublished account of his travels. He turned the manuscript over to H. C. Weinkauff who included the description in his Systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet of 1875. Weinkauff called the new shells ''Conus schech Jickeli''. The action leaves the species in a tenuous position. Since Jickeli was not the author of the publication, under ICZN rules he could not properly have his name on the species. Weinkauff should be credited. The proper name, therefore, would be Conus schech Weinkauff or, as some would have it, C. schech "Jickeli" Weinkauff. But not "C. schech Jickeli." Incidentally, in describing the new cone, Weinkauff erroneously specified Massawa (in modern Eritrea) as its locality. This was later corrected to Dahlak Islands by Jickeli himself.

Point Two: Weinkauff's illustrations (Taf. 37, Figs. 9 and 10) show a cone that is similar in every way to my specimen from the old collection. The shape is not that of C. amadis but of C. acumillatus. This is reasonable, since the true C. schech came from the southern Red Sea, an area to which C. acuminatus is endemic but in which no forms of C. amadis have ever been found. Unlike the typical C. acuminatus, the C. schech has no tent markings. Instead it has a network of very fine longitudinal lines. The difference is comparable to C. textile vs C. eumitus. I have not decided to my own satisfaction whether C. schech is anything more than a variation of pattern within a population of C. acuminatus or is a subspecies. At any rate, it does not appear to be a valid species. I propose tentatively to call it "Conus acuminatus schech (Weinkauff, 1875)."

Point Three. What about the new specimen from the Bay of Bengal, alsocailed C. schech? Let us go back to Weinkauff. Before publishing Systematisches Coochylien-Cabinet in 1875, Weinkauff naturally examined the literature. In Kiener (page 133 T. 99 f. 5) he found a species labelled Conus neptunus Reeve. Weinkauff recognized at once that Kiener's figure did not match Reeve's description of C. neptunus. The two represented separate species. Then Weinkauff made a mistake of his own. He identified his new C. schech with Kiener's C. neptunus. True, there is a certain similarity, but the differences are obvious. From the figure, Kiener's C. neptunus is without doubt the same species as my new shell from the Bay of Bengal and apparently is a variation of C. amadis. For convenience, I will call this shell ''Conus amadis neptunus ( Kiener, 1843)."

Point Four. We are not yet at the end of this voyage of discovery. In his Thesaurus Vol. V, 1887, G. B. Sowerby identified C. schech with C. amadis, referring 10 Vol. III, Fig. 171 (1858). But the latter figure is not the same as Kiener's figure of C. neptunus. It is very similar to the shell later described as C. schech. Tryon, in his Manual or Conchology (1884) declared (correctly, in my opinion): ''C. schech is perhaps only an extreme variety of C. acuminatus Hwass." In his next sentence, however, he confuses things again by writing. 'It is the neptunus of Kiener (not Reeve)." Then, to carry the confusion to extremes, he illustrates his statement with Kiener's amadis figure instead of the figures of Weinkauff or Jickeli. The name Conus schech seems to disappear from the literature at that point. More recent works, such as Marsh & Rippingale's Cone Shells of the World and Abbott & Wagner's Standard Catalog ignore it. But now, suddenly, it returns to the repertoire of species names. Specimens are becoming available. Soon, I am sure, it will be on dealers' lists. Is it too late to correct this hundred-year-old error?

Galerie