Tropical Landshells of the World

This sumptuous volume could have been much more than just an introduction to tropical land shells, which is all that it amounts to. The introduction to terrestrial molluscs covers their origin, classification and biology. It is followed by useful regional accounts, helpfully divided into regions. These review the major mollusc groups present and list references to that region. These reference lists are necessarily very incomplete. The authors arc to be congratulated on the excellent photographs of living animals which accompany the regional accounts. Two maps showing the natural forms of vegetation in the Tropics and the zoogeographical zones are provided.

The 77 coloured plates depicting shells are excellent but unfortunately the best use has not been made of them. Plates 1 -7 are devoted to the genus Liguus, including endless varieties of L.fasciatus. In view of the number of genera entirely ommitted from this work, surely one plate would have sufficed. The same applies to plates 9 and 10 which figure numerous varieties of Polymita fricta created by Torre, 1950 which the author must have thought up when he had nothing better to do! The family Camaenidae is again over represented: pls. 56-57 and elsewhere. The choice of genera to illustrate is not well balanced since some 60 arc entirely unrepresented. Very beautiful small shells such as Opisthostoma could have been included, enlargements of these would have been very welcome. Amongst the genera with which the reviewer is familiar there are numerous incorrect identifications. On pl. 15 the genus Gonyostomus in the family Strophocheilidae is represented by an unnamed shell, probably a species of Drymaeus but certainly not a member of this genus. Yet on pl. 16, fig. 17 G. gmyostomus is correctly identified. Pl. 15, figs. 10-11 represent Cydodmtina labrosa (Menkc) not C. inflata (Wagner). Pl. 16, fig. 1 is a colour form of Porphyrobaphe wstoma (Sow.) (sec also pi. 17, figs. 4@ 5) The locality 'Chile' given for P. iostoma is certainly erroneous. It is known only from Northwestern Peru and Ecuador. Pl. 17, fig. 2 is not Sultana atramentaria (Pfr.) but S. approximatus (Fulton). Pl. 19, figs. 1-2 are probably both the same species. It is not possible to identify Strophocheilus valenciennsii (Pfr.) without an adequate description! Fig. 4 is S. terrestris terrestris (Spix) not S. granulosus (Rang) nor is fig. 8 S. g. abbresiatus Bequaert but a form of S. oblongus (Mull.) S. granulosus is a species the senior author has apparently never seen. Plates 20-26 cover the Acharinidae. Pl. 20, fig. 1 is Pseudachatina gatonmsis (Shuttkworth) not5.joAni(Kobclt); pl. 21,fig. 4 gives a totally false impression of Perideropsis fallsensis Dautz. & Putz. a strikingly coloured and beautiful species. Pl. 22, figs. 7-8 Limicolaria martensiana (martensi is a misspelling); figs. 7-8 not L. m. karagwensis (karagweensis is a misspelling) but a unicolourous form of L. martensiana (Smith, 1880) figs. 9-10 L. pallidistriga Mts., 1895 is a synonym of L. martensiana (Smith, 1880); fig. 14 is L. cailliaudi Pfr. 1850 (= festiva Mts., 1869); fig. 15 L. dimidiata Mts., 1890 (not 1880) is a synonym ofL. martensiana (Smith, 1880) a species not recorded from the Sudan. The shell illustrated is Z. terrii (Pfr., 1861);figs. 16-17 represent L. martensiana fuscesens Mts., 1897 synonym L. smithi Preston, 1906 (not L. smithi Pilsbry, 1904). Pl. 24, figs. 1 and 8 Achatina (Liliachatina) immaculata Lamarck, 1822 (panthera Ferussac, 1821 is a nomen nudum); pi. 26, fig. 2 is Archachatina (Archachatina) bicarinata (Brug., 1792) not Achatina! This species is the type by subsequent designation of Pilsbry, 1904 of the genus Archachatina Albers, 1850; fig. 3 is Archachatina (Calachatina) marginata (Swainson, 1821) again not Achahna!

Pl. 30, fig. 2 represents Clasator exinws (Shuttleworth, 1852) not C. clavata (Petit, 1844); pi. 35, fig. 8 is in Phoenicorhis not Camaena; fig. 9 also, careless editing! Pl. 36, figs. 15-16 sec also pl. 55, figs. 12-15. These are stated to be different species! How do you tell them apart without a description? Pl. 48, figs. 8-9. It is not surprising that these two shells are referred to only as Cochlostyla sp. since both are obvious fakes for which the Philippine islanders are famous or perhaps infamous. Pl. 55, figs. 12-15 compare with pl. 36, figs. 15-16. These are all the same species whatever this may be. Pl. 68, figs. 4-5 Placostylus jiaratus (Martyn, 1784) is an unavailable name since the ICZN ruled in 1957 that Martyn's "Universal Conchologist" was officially rejected for nomenclatoral purposes. P. elongatus (Lightfoot, 1786) is the next available. Pl. 71, fig. 5 is P. smichristovalensis (Cox, 1870) not P. hargrasesi (Cox, 1871) Fig. 6 is P. cleryi (Petit, 1850) (decorticated shell) not P. stitchturyi (Pfr., 1860) (not 1856).

In view of the small amount of information given in the explanations to the plates and the considerable waste of space on these pages, there seems little justification for the complete failure to provide descriptions of the species illustrated. I wonder how the authors expect the users of this work to identify specimens when often only one figure is provided. Should this be a back view then there is no indication of the shape of the aperture and you are left to guess what type of sculpture, protoconch etc. the shell in question may have.

This beautifully illustrated work could have been of invaluable assistance to all those interested in tropical land shells. The lack of descriptions and the fact that so many genera have been ommitted, when many more could have been included had the plates available been better used greatly reduces its value as a working tool. A wonderful opportunity and a great deal of hard work seems to have been wasted in consequence. The high price asked for this book in the U.K. £70.00 can only be justified by the introductory chapters and the excellent plates.