Dear Gijs,

Many thanks for your comprehensive explanation about the placement of Terebellum in Seraphidae. This proves once again that substantive information can actually be exchanged on Conch-L ! ¦:-)

I guess the addition of a new family is in order for my database. I've done a few searches on the Internet for Seraphidae and found three Web sites, but none include a list of species other than Terebellum. Are there any modern reference(s) available that list all of the species included in the Family Seraphidae?

Rich worldwideconchology.com

At 02:04 PM 4/18/2002, you wrote: > > Gijs, > > > > It seems that not all modern conchological literature generally accept >Jung's revisionary placement of Terebellum terebellum in Seraphidae? In many >cases the Terebellum is still grouped with Strombidae. Is it that Jung's >paper is not well known, or is this revision considered controversial and >rejected by some? > > > > Rich > > worldwideconchology.com > > >Indeed Rich, > >Jungs paper was completely overlooked by e.g. Kreipl et al. (Conchological >Iconography). I understand that in most literature dealing with fossil >species Jungs revision is accepted (by most). >Recently Dr. Luiz Ricardo Simone has performed some analysis on >stromboideans. most surprising in his analysis is that the Xenophoridae are, >once again, placed in the Stromboidea. This is supported by observations >made by >Kiel, Steffen & Marķa del Carmen Perrilliat, 2001. New Gastropods from the >Maastrichtian of the Mexcala formation in guerrero, southern Mexico. Part 1: >Stromboidea. N.Jb. Geol. Paläont. Abh. 222(3): 407-426. >on the protoconchs. >Anyway, within the cladogram presented by Dr. Simone the Struthiolariidae >appear to be the most "primitive", aporrhaids are more advanced, xenophorids >are more advanced, then Terebellum followed by the strombid genus Canarium. >Unfortunately, Tibia-like species and Varicospira are omitted, but the >number of differences between Terebellum at one hand, and the more advanced >Strombidae (although they share a number of characters that sets them apart >from Xenophoridae) makes the recognition of Seraphidae at least plausible. >In my private collection I have separated them as distinct families. > >Gijs