|
Post by Paul on Aug 13, 2005 20:02:23 GMT
The message is listed in the URL I posted in my last message: There is nothing magical or special about my dimdiata, they look like... www.petsnails.co.uk/index.php?action=gallery&species=7...there are variations from snail to snail, some have darker bodies, slight colour changes, the usual etc... I detect major sarcasm here, and I don't understand why. I am not saying immaculata don't exist as a separate species, I am simply saying that some more than likely are misidentified. That is NOT unreasonable when you look how misidentified a lot of things are in the snail world. Also, my observations are based on just that, when a long list of traits are the same, it seems to me that you are not open-minded to a perfectly reasonable suggestion. So far, aside from shell shape, which we know is highly variable, and the distinction of the two-tone which is also highly variable, you have no basis for suggesting they are definitely different. I personally don't give a shit, I want to know what mine are, couldn't care less if they are dimidiata or immaculata. But read back through the posts. My suggestions (which is all they are) are based on real identifiable observations. I was flabbergasted that I met so much resistance that I don't believe is backed up by anything other than being upset that the snail you have got may not be what you suspected it to be. I'm surprised there is such emotive resistance to an otherwise clinical and non-emotive suggestion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2005 20:10:55 GMT
oh sorry if you feel offended or anything, its just that i was sceptical when you said you thought they were the same thing. Oh yes many 'immaculata' are infact dimidiata, maybe because immaculata are quite rare in the wild, and thats why im eager to get some wild ones.
All I think is that the scientists who first described the two species are not unreliable. I don't think you should make observations on two species on a few captive specimens that are probably not representative of what is present in the wild.
leibe grusse
mike
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Aug 13, 2005 20:16:12 GMT
I don't understand, coz that is what I have said all along I'm reiterating here, I said that you can't just assume something is one species based on a captive-bred specimen, that could have been misidentified when it entered the European captive population. It seemed to me that the immaculata specimen that looked dimidiata-like doesn't mean that all immaculata look like dimidiata. In fact, most of the ones listed on shell-sites etc look nothing like dimdiata at all. So that would mean that most of the wild-immaculata are nothing like dimidata. Again, a point of logic in favour of my argument. Again, to be clear, I am suggesting that some of these immaculata may not be. Whereas you are suggesting that because one snail that looks like a dimidiata is called an immaculata, then all immaculata must be true to that holotype. It seems to put the cart before the horse to me. Circular reasoning. My reasoning is simply that these two-tone ones may be immaculata and I may have some, that's all.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Aug 13, 2005 21:50:21 GMT
Anyway, I'm really not trying to be a hard-on about it. At the end of the day I'm interested in learning, and one the ways to do that is to challenge things, especially what we as amateurs understand. And also since the information available is so sparse. I got that Bequaert book expecting more than it delivers. At least on the surface. Then I realised that Bequaert and others were also limited somewhat, you should see the correction lists in the book itself!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2005 18:03:56 GMT
those are dimidiata, right?
|
|
Kevin
Archachatina dimidiata
Posts: 2,227
|
Post by Kevin on Aug 19, 2005 18:18:27 GMT
My dimidiata are different to those heres my dimidiata Virginia Cheeseman is selling dimidiata on her site, this picture is from her site
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2005 10:52:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by eric2 on Aug 30, 2005 10:05:27 GMT
i have sent the pics to paul so hopefuly he should get them this time
eric
|
|
|
Post by natrat84 on Aug 30, 2005 13:32:56 GMT
Thats cool Eric. Hopefully Paul can get them small enough to get on here
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Aug 30, 2005 13:52:23 GMT
Ok, both pictures are the same so I have resized the best one: Eric, what does the BNHM say each are exactly?
|
|
Arno
Archachatina puylaerti
Posts: 1,493
|
Post by Arno on Aug 30, 2005 16:01:49 GMT
Can we guess?lol...........left one dimidiata and right one immaculata?
|
|
|
Post by sezzy5889 on Aug 30, 2005 16:03:46 GMT
what is this thread about exactly cuz dimidiata and immaculata don't look anything alike
Corrected Latin name for search purposes - paul
|
|
|
Post by eric2 on Aug 30, 2005 17:24:45 GMT
they said : I have compared some specimens of Achatina dimidiata and Achatina immaculata (see attached photos: A. dimidiata is on the left and A. immaculata on the right - sorry the pictures aren't great quality my camera skills are poor at best, if you need clearer pictures let me know and I'll do some more for you). We only have two specimens of Achatina dimidiata and these are actually the type specimens the species was originally described from. The main difference is that A. dimidiata seems to have a move rounded, less pointed apex (the summit of the shell). Other differences is Achatina dimidiata has finer and sculpture with finer ribs. The periostracum (the horny outer covering of the shell) also appears more delicate on Achatina dimidiata than in A. immaculata. And lastly although this does vary greatly between individuals A. immaculata has a much more banded and contrasting colouration to it than which is a much more uniform colour.
glad the pics were sent this time eric
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Aug 30, 2005 18:11:14 GMT
Ok, I stand by what I said originally, Anneth's immaculata are dimidiata. The banding is faint on that specimen, one of the points argued in favour of it being an immaculata earlier.
|
|
Kevin
Archachatina dimidiata
Posts: 2,227
|
Post by Kevin on Aug 30, 2005 18:21:52 GMT
Ok, I stand by what I said originally, Anneth's immaculata are dimidiata. The banding is faint on that specimen, one of the points argued in favour of it being an immaculata earlier. I was planning on getting some of Anneths snails, but I already have dimidiata adults and babies, I dont want more dimidiata so is it worth getting them?
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Aug 30, 2005 18:56:14 GMT
I have no idea. I've just re-read through all this thread and I still think it is plausible to think that the dimidiata-looking "immaculata" are actually dimidiata and I can't understand why other people can't see that. But, don't take my word for it. All I can say is that if it was me, based on your reasons, I wouldn't buy them.
And, even if they are different, you have to admit they are very similar looking. What's your reasoning for wanting them. Do you just want more species, do you like the look of them, are you intending to breed them?
If it is 1 or 3, why not wait until less confusing examples of immaculata come up, like the ones Christabel owned. If 2, then go hog wild....
|
|
Kevin
Archachatina dimidiata
Posts: 2,227
|
Post by Kevin on Aug 30, 2005 19:02:17 GMT
I'll have a good think, I do like the look of them, but if they are dimidiata then I can get plenty of them here. I was intending on breeding them also, but I am intending to breed my dimidiata I already have also.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2005 11:22:38 GMT
i guess its very difficult to find a 'true' immaculata, except maybe for germans they seem to have them.
oh well theres always next year. i think anneths is a crossbreed, cus the person who she got it from has immaculata (its his picture in the photos section of petsnails)
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Sept 1, 2005 11:49:58 GMT
Well, Fredrik checked his records. He got 10 snails from South Africa with no name listed for them. They got what they thought was two types. Because there was so little info, him and Daniel decided that one type was immaculata, the other dimidiata. Daniel got the immaculata? and Fredrik got the dimidiata? However Daniel's babies (now Anneth's and the parents of yours) turned out to look like Fredriks, so we were wondering if they are the same type, with some polymorphism between the ones thought to be immaculata and ones thought to be dimidiata.
Anyway, I have ordered that South African species book. So that may help us reveal what they are. At least we now know the history of these snails and the locality of their collection. Hopefully the book will clear up what species exist there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2005 14:17:25 GMT
so, paul, do u think the two-tone shell is a characteristic of only dimidiata?
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Sept 1, 2005 15:30:42 GMT
I wouldn't like to say for sure at the moment really. I suspect this may be the case, because normal immaculata are much more definitely striped and the albino form is white, not two-tone. Not sure what is the case, the only evidence pointing to two-tone immaculata is that South African website (the one with the picture of what looks like a dark bodied dimidiata lol). I'm hoping this book will cover dimidiata so we can get a proper description. That site is working on the principle that there is only one type of snail with a pink columella, so any found with one must be immaculata. If we can find documented evidence of dimidiata having such a feature then that would be untrue and would explain them being lumped together.
I also want to see if immaculata get listed as South African, most sources except the above think it is West African.
From what Fredrik was telling me, Daniels were browner and had a much more scuffed shell (as is supposed to be the case with immaculata). But it could be that the non-scuffed ones had just had less wear and tear or were younger. I saw one of my dimidiata this morning, spire-on and it was quite scuffed and for a minute I couldn't help think it looked like an immaculata from the same angle. It could still well be the case that dimidiata are a variant of immaculata. Grrr, it is so confusing to get your head round all the possibilities. We'll see what the book says.
I spoke to the author, so if it doesn't satisfactorily answer our questions I will ask him to clarify the situation, or at least investigate it for us. He mentioned there are references mentioned in the book, presumably he has access to these papers/books.
I also have a book from 1919 that has a massive African locale reference. That may help us find out where immaculata can be found.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2005 15:36:31 GMT
paul, look here www.nhpa.co.ukand type achatina immaculata in the search bit, and then some snail pictures come up. theres one with a two-tone shell and very very dark skin. the two-tone is very odd in achatina, usually any stripes are radial. perhaps dimidiata have a smoother shell, or are more likely to have the orange stripe down the neck... is the book you're getting the publication of the south african conchological society? kind regards mike
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Sept 1, 2005 15:58:07 GMT
I know what you are saying Mike, I had a look. But how do we know how they decided? That two-tone one is the best example yet of my dimdiata shells. The difference is mine have a lighter body which indicates very little. The picture I mean is: www.nhpa.co.uk/cache/pcache/00023782.jpgUnfortunately, there are a number of species with two-tone shells, but nowhere near as distinct. Don't ask me which I can't remember off the top of my head and it would take some trawling through Bequaert to find out. I'm not sure if the book is the same one, I contacted that conchology society and they never replied. I actually tried a number of times at a number of addresses. It may well be. It is the one that was mentioned on this forum recently, for about £35. Seeing as I get a little sponsorship and I got a few quid from the dimidiata sales, I'm chucking in also myself and buying it. I have also bought 2 other books, both mentioned on Arno's site: www.arnobrosi.com/bookreview.htmlMolluscs - J.E.Morton The illustrated guide to molluscs - Horst Janus I know they won't help with this question but it does no harm to have more sources of info generally.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2005 16:13:24 GMT
paul, do you mean this book www.nmsa.org.za/Showbody.asp?nc=3023&id=157or this book - ''The Achatinid landsnails of South Africa (M.B Cortie & D. Aiken) – Special Publication no. 7 of the Conchological Society of Southern Africa.'' ?
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Sept 1, 2005 16:19:03 GMT
It is the first one. I tried and tried to get the second one, but with no luck at all. I didn't even get a response.
|
|