Smithii vs Panthera

[copigeon]

Any chance of some pictures of Panthera vs Smithii?

I have some juvenilles of supposedly each, but I have a suspicion theyre all Smithii.

Will get some of my own pictures up at somepoint today if I can but some compared differences would be handy and there arnt any panthera pics I can find in the forum search.

Cheers,

[sezzy5889]

how big are they?

[copigeon]

2/ 2.5 inches in length the largest. A decent enough size to be able to tell I'd hope,

btw sarah, you were worried about the rodazti turning out to be fulcia? Mine darkened off quite a bit until lately, all thier new shell growth has been patternless pale yellow. Will get some pictures of them too to demonstrate. So you may not have to worry?

[sezzy5889]

my rodatzi are about 4cm

[Kevin]

^ Achatina smithii







^ Lissachatina panthera



^ panthera/dimidiata?



^ The one on the left may be panthera or smithii, when I got it from Eric and posted pics it was identified as panthera, Paul has since posted that it looks more like a smithii though.

Im a bit confused about panthera at the moment,
Paul (or anyone else who would know) are panthera a species? are they Lissachatina? or a form of Achatina immaculata

...
copigeon did you see the pm' I sent you about phasmids?

[copigeon]

Cheers Kevin, going to nab some pics now. Hmm.

Yes I did reply is sent. Sorry it took so long things have been hectic.

So from what I can see panthera are dumpier? less.. elongated shell shape?

[sezzy5889]

^
Smithii at 3cm

[sezzy5889]

smithii also seem to have much darker skin whereas panthera's skin is identical to dimidiata

Corrected Latin name for search purposes - paul

[Kevin]

copigeon said:

Cheers Kevin, going to nab some pics now. Hmm.

Yes I did reply is sent. Sorry it took so long things have been hectic.

So from what I can see panthera are dumpier? less.. elongated shell shape?

I have some panthera with elongated shells, they're the ones that were misidentified as stuhlmanni, these ones

[Paul]

I'm doing an immaculata page as we speak, then ventricosa as requested but this may be of use. The best way to rule out smithii is to check the nepionic whorls with a magnifying glass. If they are smooth, they are not smithii as smithii are Achatina and not Lissachatina. If you are unsure what to look for, look at tigers. They have granulated whorls, so if you can see them on your tigers with your magnifying glass, it is powerful enough to look for them on your unidentified ones.

[Arno]

Who knows,smithii might turn out to be another form of immaculata.

[Paul]

pandatazz said:

Im a bit confused about panthera at the moment,
Paul (or anyone else who would know) are panthera a species? are they Lissachatina? or a form of Achatina immaculata

Panthera are not a species since their reproductive systems have been proven to be anatomically identical to immaculata and immaculata is the oldest name. So they are Achatina (Lissachatina) immaculata.

I had been promoting the use of Lissachatina fulica and panthera since we were told explicitly by the BNHM that Albert Mead had decided the subgenus should be raised to genus and this included panthera and fulica. I haven't done that for other species because I don't know if the reproductive analysis confirmed them as subgenus Lissachatina in the first place. Which leaves us with 2 annoying anomalies. Firstly, if Mead determined panthera are immaculata, why did he then suggest there was such a thing as Lissachatina panthera? I think the BNHM assumed that from Meads suggestion that the subgenus be raised. They couldn't have known for sure that "panthera" was still considered Lissachatina and born out by reproductive organ study, otherwise they'd have called it immaculata. The second is that although we know fulica to be a true species and it being much more likely for them to know they should be classed as Lissachatina fulica, we can't be sure it wasn't an assumption.

I've emailed Mead and tried to find a publication which revised the list, but if he is truly working on one, he's not published it yet and he's 90-odd!

So I'm going back to the old way for now, meaning fuilca are Achatina (Lissachatina) fulica. I'll be updating the site. Sorry to be annoying but I was trying to be as accurate as possible but that just seems like a waste of time, since I was expecting this "new" information to be available a lot quicker, and now it is just confusing for people. I guess that's the problem with writing a website whilst things are unknown or unproven.

Actually, I just checked and it could be Dr Willem Sirgel who has studied immaculata reproductive organs. I need to contact him, because he may at least know and perhaps he will reply.

[copigeon]

I shall attempt to do that paul, thankyou. Will have a go tomorrow.