|
Post by sezzy5889 on Nov 23, 2005 12:28:39 GMT
sometimes the bluey columella can look a little purple
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2005 12:30:14 GMT
yeh thats true
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Nov 23, 2005 16:33:47 GMT
in the snail pictures all the way at the bottom of the page it says fulica these are the same snails about half the way down is a pic of the columella. it looks purple to me
|
|
Kevin
Archachatina dimidiata
Posts: 2,227
|
Post by Kevin on Nov 23, 2005 16:41:15 GMT
in the snail pictures all the way at the bottom of the page it says fulica these are the same snails about half the way down is a pic of the columella. it looks purple to me Do you mean this picture?
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Nov 23, 2005 18:23:50 GMT
yeah
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Dec 20, 2005 6:57:08 GMT
Having seen more pics, at this stage I'm pretty confident they are panthera or if immaculata are indeed the same species, then immaculata would take dominance.
Reasons...
Panthera vary little in outline from babies to adults. The ratio of length:width is 1:1.75. I measured your snail in pixels and the ratio is 1:1.73 which is damn close.
Panthera were often mistaken for fulica because they look very similar.
It has a purple columella which is quite possible for panthera.
The first 3 whorls are white, apparently another identifying factor.
The aperture is over half the length of the entire shell.
The body-whorl is large, about two-thirds of the length of the shell.
The columella is very straight, long and weakly concave.
Until they are older or we get very young babies we'll not be able to tell any more. There is the distinct possibility they are a crossbreed of either species, if you believe the panthera, immaculata and stuhlmanni we have are truly different or some sort of sub-species/variant cross if you don't.
There is also albopicta to consider, I've not seen any confirmed colour photos and the info is variable. The size and number of whorls should make this pretty clear as they get older. In black and white the albopicta I have seen look like our reticulata. The plot thickens...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2005 13:50:58 GMT
i guess they could be (brown) panthera, but my one of the same size has a sort of light brown shell with darker brown mottled bits. like a mixture of stripes and spots. eric's snails tbh look like a lot of juvenile fulica ive seen. i just dont think you can base an identification on shell proportions when the snail is juvenile. sorry i argue so much ooooh you should see my albopicta she's gorgeous the shell is ivory with dark red-brown stripes which extend all the way across the whorl and are quite close together and thick. the apex is bright pink and the body is brown. i'll take a picture one day.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Dec 20, 2005 14:09:14 GMT
i guess they could be (brown) panthera, but my one of the same size has a sort of light brown shell with darker brown mottled bits. like a mixture of stripes and spots. See earlier post. eric's snails tbh look like a lot of juvenile fulica ive seen. i just dont think you can base an identification on shell proportions when the snail is juvenile. It's all a case of indicators. I agree that shell proportion is not reliable but according to Bequaert for "panthera", their proportion and outline stay the same at any size, which is why I mentioned it. My panthera before they got ill, were ID'd by the BNHM but they looked exactly like the immaculata in the Achatinidae.com page you posted. Also, the one mistake all the malacologists made with fulica was the columella colour. There hasn't been a fulica yet recorded with a pink/purple columella, so that rules them out straight away. It is possible they exist, but if it is so unlikely in the wild, it is even rarer in captivity. I think it is all about indicators adding up, like I said you can't tell for sure at full size even though it will rule some species out. I listed the indicators that do match, and I think there is quite a few, the very straight columella particularly that you can clearly see. Fulica have quite a twisted columella. Then there is the 3 white whorls. I have loads of pics of panthera in the books and loads look like fulica. In fact, look at this: You'd be forgiven for mistaking that as a fulica, it is the pink columella that gives it away. So to be honest, most of the panthera in the Bequaert book are quite light-shelled, some with more stripes than others. I think they are all variations of immaculata, the dark-shelled, dark-striped "panthera" being more typically immaculata.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2005 14:14:42 GMT
so are we gonna call panthera immaculata now?
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Dec 21, 2005 2:47:52 GMT
so are we gonna call panthera immaculata now? I missed this post, Bequaert lists 3 subspecies of panthera so it isn't like we can say Achatina immaculata "panthera". We also have the "brown" form and the "blue" form. There is very little data on immaculata so I've been pondering this myself. I think when I get round to making the relevant species pages I will treat them as the same species, but try and explain the confusion in a way that will keep the connection with panthera somehow. For example, I'll probably just change Achatina panthera var. lamarckiana to Achatina immaculata var lamarckiana (syn. panthera) as it should be. However there are bound to be immaculata variants that are synonyms of panthera variants, although I can find no information on immaculata. It is hard for us to decide sub-species with no geographic data but there are some obvious distinctions we can use. Either way, I think we need to lean towards lumping rather than splitting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2005 9:09:02 GMT
well you have to find a solution to this 'lissachatina' thing first. if panthera and immaculata are the same species they cant be in different genera...
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Dec 21, 2005 10:31:30 GMT
They won't be, they would be Lissachatina fulica and Lissachatina immaculata IF lissachatina by sex organs (Mead) matches lissachatina by smooth nepionic whorls (Bequaert).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2005 12:07:53 GMT
so which are subgenus lissachatina and which are achatina?
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Dec 21, 2005 12:23:59 GMT
There is quite a list but out of the ones we know reasonably well....
Sub-genus lissachatina:
craveni, glutinosa, immaculata, fulica, panthera, iredalei, albopicta, reticulata.
Sub-genus achatina:
achatina, balteata, isostoma, natalensis, smithii, stuhlmanni, tincta, varicosa, zebra
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2005 12:26:23 GMT
so by smooth nepionic whorls do you mean like newborn fulica have smooth shells but newborn tigers have tiny grooves on the shell? (sorry for all the questions i just wish i had a copy of that book of yours)
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Dec 21, 2005 12:29:04 GMT
yes, that's exactly it.
I have started the identification matrix, I'll fill in as much as I can and then we'll see where it leaves us. Perhaps we can all help fill in some blanks.
|
|