Post by Paul on Jan 26, 2006 7:48:31 GMT
I have bought a jewellers eye magnifying glass 20x. Not as good as a microscope but far more versatile and you can view anything, not just what will fit under a microscope.
Anyway, the point is that I have been able to make some determinations.
Firstly for those of you who don't know..
Subgenus is helped to be determined by the texture of the nepionic whorls (the whorls formed in the egg).
Subgenus Achatina is determined by having some texture, particularly granulated (looks like tiny granules of rice).
Subgenus Lissachatina is determined by having no texture, or particularly smooth nepionic whorls.
Not to be confused with the Achatina/Lissachatina Genus.
Ok, so first I looked at the nepionic whorls of Achatina achatina and I could see the granulated texture which determines them as subgenus Achatina. ;D
So, then I looked at my iredalei (from Mike). Iredalei are classed by Bequaert as being Lissachatina and for me they are one of the least likely to be wrong. Sure enough, smooth nepionic whorls. ;D
Next, I checked the immaculata. Smooth nepionic whorls. so that is correct. ;D
Then I checked my stuhlmanni. Stuhlmanni are classed as subgenus achatina. But unfortunately they had smooth whorls.
It is still possible they have been sanded off, I'd need to look at babies to be 100% sure but coupled with the pink columella, I determine them as panthera, or more accurately immaculata.
They are a small variety, or perhaps undergrown by captivity as Nisbet experienced. Panthera actually turned out to be slim-variety of immaculata. So I would say their profile fits perfectly. My other panthera, which died of that illness were extremely blunt and bulbous so I can only deduce that they were what would have been more readily called immaculata.
I did wonder if the stuhlmanni could also be proved to be panthera, because there is so little info about them. Pilsbry records that the Stuhlmann college collected theirs in northern Zaire, now the Dem. Rep. Congo and you see them named by some the Ugandan Pink-lipped snail, and Uganda is next door. I've never seen the pink lip on the few photos I've seen either so the name has always puzzled me. The point here is that they border the distribution (I can find evidence of) of immaculata so the idea didn't seem daft. But real stuhlmanni are subgenus Achatina. Perhaps the vernacular name "Ugandan pink-lipped snail" isn't accurate.
We need to get hold of a copy of one of the following:
Achatina stuhlmanni E. v. Martens, 1892, Sitz. Ber. Ges. naturf. Fr. Berlin, p. 176; 1897, Deutsch Ost Afr., IV, Beschalte Weichth., p. 92, Pl.
IV, fig. 9. PILSBRY, 1904, Man. of Conch., (2) XVII, p. 68, Pl. XXXIV, fig. 13 (copy of description and figure).
to get a description. And then we wake up an have our cornflakes 
Anyway, the point is that I have been able to make some determinations.
Firstly for those of you who don't know..
Subgenus is helped to be determined by the texture of the nepionic whorls (the whorls formed in the egg).
Subgenus Achatina is determined by having some texture, particularly granulated (looks like tiny granules of rice).
Subgenus Lissachatina is determined by having no texture, or particularly smooth nepionic whorls.
Not to be confused with the Achatina/Lissachatina Genus.
Ok, so first I looked at the nepionic whorls of Achatina achatina and I could see the granulated texture which determines them as subgenus Achatina. ;D
So, then I looked at my iredalei (from Mike). Iredalei are classed by Bequaert as being Lissachatina and for me they are one of the least likely to be wrong. Sure enough, smooth nepionic whorls. ;D
Next, I checked the immaculata. Smooth nepionic whorls. so that is correct. ;D
Then I checked my stuhlmanni. Stuhlmanni are classed as subgenus achatina. But unfortunately they had smooth whorls.
It is still possible they have been sanded off, I'd need to look at babies to be 100% sure but coupled with the pink columella, I determine them as panthera, or more accurately immaculata.They are a small variety, or perhaps undergrown by captivity as Nisbet experienced. Panthera actually turned out to be slim-variety of immaculata. So I would say their profile fits perfectly. My other panthera, which died of that illness were extremely blunt and bulbous so I can only deduce that they were what would have been more readily called immaculata.
I did wonder if the stuhlmanni could also be proved to be panthera, because there is so little info about them. Pilsbry records that the Stuhlmann college collected theirs in northern Zaire, now the Dem. Rep. Congo and you see them named by some the Ugandan Pink-lipped snail, and Uganda is next door. I've never seen the pink lip on the few photos I've seen either so the name has always puzzled me. The point here is that they border the distribution (I can find evidence of) of immaculata so the idea didn't seem daft. But real stuhlmanni are subgenus Achatina. Perhaps the vernacular name "Ugandan pink-lipped snail" isn't accurate.
We need to get hold of a copy of one of the following:
Achatina stuhlmanni E. v. Martens, 1892, Sitz. Ber. Ges. naturf. Fr. Berlin, p. 176; 1897, Deutsch Ost Afr., IV, Beschalte Weichth., p. 92, Pl.
IV, fig. 9. PILSBRY, 1904, Man. of Conch., (2) XVII, p. 68, Pl. XXXIV, fig. 13 (copy of description and figure).
to get a description. And then we wake up an have our cornflakes
;D (Sorry, Kevin, to not have asked firstly you, as those immac´s and panthera´s are already yours and just guests in my home.... 
)
