Lissachatina panthera

[sezzy5889]

Please only post pictures, and:

Any info you know regarding age, size, location and subspecies etc.

Who's picture it is and what credit would be required for the website. (link etc).

[Kevin]

I thought panthera was a subspecies of immaculata?

I posted pictures in the immaculata section that I bought as immaculata, but may be panthera.

[sezzy5889]

well people keep asking where they should put panthera and not getting an answer so i just made a thread

i don't think they should go in the same one, not onyl because panthera are Lissachatina and immaculata are achatina...

[Kevin]

sezzy5889 said:

because panthera are Lissachatina and immaculata are achatina...

admin said:

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.

[sezzy5889]

might as well just wait for Paul to come on rather than try and sort it out, after all it is up to him

[Deleted]

i'm sure there are some differences between panthera and immaculata ;D



age - 1 year
size - 6cm
location - CB in germany
subspecies- brown form

[sezzy5889]

well i deffinately think there is external differences in striped panthera


Form: striped
age: approx 3 months
Size in pic: 4cm


Form: striped
age: approx 3 months
Size in pic: 5cm


Form: striped
age: approx 4 months
Size in pic: 5cm


Form: striped
age: approx 4 months
Size in pic: 5½cm


Form: striped
age: approx 5 months
Size in pic: 7cm


Form: striped
age: approx 5 months
Size in pic: 7cm


Form: striped
age: approx 6 months
Size in pic: 8cm


Form: striped
age: approx 6 months
Size in pic: 8cm

[Kevin]

lotsofsnails said:

i'm sure there are some differences between panthera and immaculata ;D

sezzy5889 said:

well i deffinately think there is external differences in striped panthera

I thought my post covered that they are Achatina (Lissachatina) immaculata unless im confused

I'd like them to be different species, and some of mine, particulary my "stuhlmanni" ones look very different to my others, but Im just going by what ive read on here.

[sezzy5889]

well it doesn't matter too much at the moment, i can always delete this thread if am wrong, we'll just wit until the expert logs on

[Deleted]

even though theyre the same its probably best to distinguish them somehow. if we went by what species they actually were i cud say

''i have some immaculata for sale''

and i cud mean dimidiata, stuhlmanni, brown panthera, striped panthera or immaculata. and some people might want certain types.

[section8angel]

People? It was me lol

Anyway:


Size about 4cm


Size probably 6cm

He was from Eric, I think they were cb over here? All pics are mine anyway. I'll try and get a better one instead of that last one.

[Paul]

Yeah, I'm gonna get rid of this thread. Variants should go in the nominate thread.

Basically here is how I would list them:

A.dimdiata doesn't exist = They are Achatina immaculata var "two-tone"
A.panthera is obsolete = They are Achatina immaculata var "panthera"
Our stuhlmanni aren't so they would be Achatina immaculata var "small panthera" if they are not the dwarf variety. I don't want to call it "stuhlmanni" as stuhlmanni are a real species. They are either var. lamarckiana (the dwarf type from Madagascar/Mauritius) or just stunted/small "panthera", with the latter being by far the most likely.

Brown, blue, striped forms are not variants, they are aberrations within a variant. So it may make sense to have Achatina immaculata var "panthera brown", Achatina immaculata var. "panthera striped" to indicate this. To be perfectly honest this is more confusing since ventricose striped "panthera" are actually probably normal immaculata.

In the simplest terms, regardless of stripes/plain etc, if they are ventricose they are immaculata var. immaculata. If they are slim they are var. "panthera" because it was this difference that caused the slim ones to be considered different.