Date:         Sat, 28 Aug 1999 18:48:35 +0200
Reply-To:     Conchologists of America List <CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sender:       Conchologists of America List <CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         "Gijs C. Kronenberg" <gijsckro@WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject:      Re: Terebellum
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Dear Andrew and others,

Indeed, the name Seraphidae (originally spelled as Seraphina) Gray, 1853 is
correct.
Seraphsidae Jung, 1974 is a junior synonym, Jung being unaware of the name
proposed by Gray.
At this moment I do not accept Seraphidae as a family, but I rather
consider it a subfamily of Strombidae. There are some characters which they
share (elongated operculum at the end of a muscular foot, eyes on stalks)
with other strombid genera.
At present there is only one recent species recognised (Terebellum
terebellum) but there may be one more. Mr. Virgilio Liveroni from Italy is
digging into this matter.

And Tom, I do not intend to do the whole Family; Euprotomus takes already a
lot of time from me. Besides, there is a new book on Strombidae in
preparation (at Conch Books, in the same new Iconographical series as the
recent work on Harpidae). I do however hope that the one on Strombidae is
better than the one on Harpidae.

Gijs


----------
> Van: Kay Lavalier <liavik@EARTHLINK.NET>
> Aan: CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Onderwerp: Terebellum
> Datum: vrijdag 27 augustus 1999 19:58
>
Andrew Vik
LIAVIK@earthlink.net

The correct spelling is Seraphidae Gray, 1853.

Andrew