Unknown Florida Shell

[MOROPUS]

I buy this affordable shell to one of my well known dealer (aswell as some other shells from the same location-I have a doubt with a Hystriovasum. Late I will post another pic).

The ID on it, was this:

"Strombus Oblongus"

"Middle Pliocene"

"Sarasota county-Florida"

Well, I it look up in Petuch book I have, and I couldn`t find nothing really similar.

So, is the Strombus Oblongus really ok?

Thanks in advance!

Here are the pics:

[MikeR]

Hi Moropus

If the shell is Middle Pliocene from Sarasota County then it is from the Pinecrest Sand Member of the Tamiami Formation. The shell itself is Strombus floridanus Mansfield, 1930. As a species it demonstrates a high degree of variation so it is not surprising that you do not find it in Petuch's book. You have to be careful when using the Atlas as his genera and species are excessively split. Most molluscan paleontologists reject Petuch's work based upon this and the lack of peer review on his books. I am in the process of writing a report on the Strombus floridanus/alatus complex of the Florida Plio-Pleistocene and hope to have it posted somewhere soon.

Mike

[MOROPUS]

Thanks a lot!

I know Petuch books aren`t the best ones, but I have no more books about Florida fauna (and I haven`t found any more, either!).

Do you know another reference book for this material, and where to buy it?

Another question.How do you ID the members of Hystrivasum from each others? Are the spines a good point?

By the way, is this Strombus extinct, or still living?

Thanks!

[MikeR]

Thanks a lot!

I know Petuch books aren`t the best ones, but I have no more books about Florida fauna (and I haven`t found any more, either!).

Do you know another reference book for this material, and where to buy it?

Another question.How do you ID the members of Hystrivasum from each others? Are the spines a good point?

By the way, is this Strombus extinct, or still living?

Thanks!

References are always a problem and what I use are all out of print. It is not that I do not use Petuch's books, but I am careful with the new species that he describes. For instance Lyle Campbell recognizes none of his Siphocypraea, Jonathan Hindricks none of his Contraconus, and Lauck Ward none of his Echphora with the exception of E. bradleyae.

Understanding the geology of the eastern US helps. For instance the Pinecrest is the same age as the Jackson Bluff Formation in the Florida panhandle, the Duplin Formation in the Carolinas and Zone 2 Yorktown in North Carolina and Virginia. References for these formations will show species common in all however Florida is warmer with greater diversity than the cooler Yorktown. With the exception of Petuch, not a lot has been done in describing species from Florida in the past 50 years which is a shame because of the expansion of the mining industry in South Florida.

I have been collecting fossil shells for almost 30 years in the Atlantic and gulf coastal plains and I have a very good comparative collection that helps in identifying species in common. Work has been done in trying to figure out the mess of described species. Hindricks in The genus Conus (Mollusca: Neogastropoda) in the Plio-Pleistocene of the southeastern United States, Bulletins of American Paleontology 375 (2008) performed a systematic study of 82 of 84 described Cones from Pliocene to Recent in the southeastern US and reduced them by variation to 19 taxa. Campbell (1993) in Pliocene Molluscs from the Yorktown and Chowan River Formations in Virginia ambitiously listed each species found in the eastern US from Pliocene to Recent. He only figures Yorktown mollusks but I do use his lists in conjunction with other references although I do find that he does not recognize some species which I do; Petuch's Lindoliva for example. Greta Polites does a decent job with Muricidae in her Murex blog although she doesn't touch Ecphora. Ward (2008) has a scathing review of published Ecphora species in Synthesis of Paleontological and Stratigraphic Investigations at the Lee Creek Mine, VMNH Special Publication 14.

In regards to Hystrivasum, Campbell also does not recognize any of Petuch's species and delegates all recognized taxa under Vasum with Hystrivasum as a subgenus. The best reference would be S.C. Hollister (1971) New Vasum Species of the Subgenus Hystrivasum, Bulletins of American Paleontology 262. I have this reference and if you post a picture, I might be able to identify it.

I erroneously stated that your shell is Strombus floridanus. It should be as Mansfield originally described it as Strombus pugilis floridanus. Extant species are Strombus pugilis pugilis from the Caribbean, Strombus pugilis alatus from Florida and the extinct Strombus pugilis floridanus. Both S.p.pugilis and S.p.alatus have been described as separate species, however Harry Lee reports that S.p. pugilis is found in Palm Beach County along with S.p. alatus and have produced hybrids. The ability to produce offspring would justify having the two extant subspecies as the same species. Unfortunately there is not the ability to prove so with fossil shells.

Mike

Edited November 11, 2010 by MikeR

[JohnJ]

Excellent post, Mike.

[MOROPUS]

Wow! What a source of info!

Yep, I`ll better take a pic of my specimens...Now I will look at Petuch guide with caution.

It`s a little difficult to figure out all that info, without being there...

Thanks a lot!

[MOROPUS]

Isn`t it strange that there is no more info of this enourmous amount of specimens? Why?

[Foshunter]

Great information and post.--Tom

[MikeR]

Isn`t it strange that there is no more info of this enourmous amount of specimens? Why?

You have to realize that you have two different groups with two different philosophies: amateurs vs. professionals and lumpers vs. splitters. My personal observations are that professionals for the most part lumpers while amateurs are splitters. This is not a criticism on either.

Professionals publish papers and tend to be conservative in their assessments. They also have access to university and museum collections where they can observe large numbers individuals and observe differences. Modern paleontology with maybe an exception for vertebrate paleo, is much more than descriptive. I feel that there is more physics and chemistry in terms interpreting ecological conditions than paleo. Also the main focus of geology departments are graduating students who can get jobs, mostly for industry. I had a strange experience this year when I went on a professional geology society field trip to some classic locations in the southern US. I was the only amateur on the trip yet knew much more about the fossils found than anyone other than the geological survey scientists who organized the trip. Most worked for engineering and environmental consulting companies and liked getting into the field to collect shark teeth.

Amateurs are collectors, they acquire specimens and classify them typically according to whatever means available. In the digital age it is easier than 20 years ago. Whereas I spent many a hour at university libraries using references and making photocopies, many references especially from a hundred years ago when most descriptive work with molluscan paleontology occurred, can be found online as pdfs. In many cases amateurs get into the field more than the professional and can establish "street cred" with the professionals by donating rare or unusual specimens for scientific study.

Since most descriptive work was done decades ago, now description is primarily on a few specimens at a time unless a new locality opens up. The Florida shell beds are so rich that it would be a daunting task to produce a tome on the order that William Healy Dall did at the turn of the 19th century with descriptions of each genus and species. At best small volumes, describing families are the best that can be expected. When Petuch came out with the Atlas, amateurs finally had something in one book that could use to identify all of the shells that were coming out of the pits during the 80s and 90s. The problem for many professionals is that he is an extensive splitter that publishes books without peer review--a breach of professional etiquette! Most amateurs could care less--they can put a name on a shell and a dealer can sell more shells if he can put more names on his items.

Of course these are my opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of the management of this forum.

Mike

Edited November 12, 2010 by MikeR

[MOROPUS]

Thanks for such an amount of info.

I will rather ask someone like you,an amateur (I think!)with great knowledge, rather than old-guide books.

Here are some more ID`s that puzzle me.

This big Vasum shell was label as:

"Vasum sp."

"Sarasota Co."

"Florida"

No more info on it...

My guess is Vasum (Hystrivasum) Violetae, from the Pliocene or Pleistocene...But another point of view will be wellcome

And about this, I think it will be easier:

Label:

"Conus Adversarius"

"Caloosahatche Fm."

"De Soto Co."

"Florida"

As you can see, this one comes from another dealer with greater knowledge of his fossils.

My guess will be (rather than Conus)-Contraconus Adversarius- Are they alright?

Thanks in advance MikeR!

[MOROPUS]

Nobody can Id them?

[MikeR]

Hi Moropus

I am currently on a business trip in California, however when I return home on Saturday, I can id your Vasum. The cone is Conus (Contraconus) adversarius.

Mike

Edited November 16, 2010 by MikeR

[Harry Pristis]

Looks to me to be Vasum horridum Heilprin. Pliocene only.

[MOROPUS]

Yep, but I have other Vasums, and it`s shape is completely different (the whorls are higher, the shell is not so "spiny", the siphon on the mouth of the shell is bigger...)

Perhaps is a specific habitat mutation.Do you know what I mean?

[Harry Pristis]

Yep, but I have other Vasums, and it`s shape is completely different (the whorls are higher, the shell is not so "spiny", the siphon on the mouth of the shell is bigger...)

Perhaps is a specific habitat mutation.Do you know what I mean?

The species with the sharp and prominent spines may be Vasum locklini Olsson & Harbison. Also Pliocene only.

[Frank Menser]

Most of what's shown here I have found similar specimens in large amounts in South Florida--except the Vasums which are harder to find. Sadly, can't help with the ID.

That first shell you pictured I have picked up (it's extant relatives) many times. Locally they are called Fighting Conchs.

Here's a beauty of another sps from Liesely Shell.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Frank Menser

[MikeR]

Thanks for such an amount of info.

I will rather ask someone like you,an amateur (I think!)with great knowledge, rather than old-guide books.

Here are some more ID`s that puzzle me.

This big Vasum shell was label as:

"Vasum sp."

"Sarasota Co."

"Florida"

No more info on it...

My guess is Vasum (Hystrivasum) Violetae, from the Pliocene or Pleistocene...But another point of view will be wellcome

And about this, I think it will be easier:

Label:

"Conus Adversarius"

"Caloosahatche Fm."

"De Soto Co."

"Florida"

As you can see, this one comes from another dealer with greater knowledge of his fossils.

My guess will be (rather than Conus)-Contraconus Adversarius- Are they alright?

Thanks in advance MikeR!

I would call the Vase shell Vasum (Hystrivasum) squamosum Hollister, 1971 based upon the two rows of shoulder spines, the slight constriction at the waist and the 5 spiral cords along the body, one more than either V. horridum (a Caloosahatchee shell) and V. locklini.

Mike

Edited November 22, 2010 by MikeR

[MOROPUS]

I would call the Vase shell Vasum (Hystrivasum) squamosum Hollister, 1971 based upon the two rows of shoulder spines, the slight constriction at the waist and the 5 spiral cords along the body, one more than either V. horridum (a Caloosahatchee shell) and V. locklini.

Mike

Thanks Mike!

[jpwolff]

It looks like Strombus floridanus Mansfield, 1930. Plate 16G (page 75 - but the correct caption is on page 84) in Petuch's Atlas