|
|
Hair ornament
Hair ornament In 1963, Barnard recorded two E. barclayi from South Africa, photos of one of which have been published in H.S.N. No. 90 (June 1967): it is undoubtedly a slightly worn specimen of Reeve's species. In November, 1968, A. Jenner boasted to have discovered two further E. barclayi in the stomach of fishes caught off Natal (Conch. Soc. S. Afr. Circ. 102). In February 1970, Mr. P. Meyer of Durban found a not fully grown E. barclayi (19.5mm long) in the stomach of a Slinger fish coming from deep waters off Durban: its photo will be published in Conch. Soc. S. Afr. Circulars soon.
Then, in March 1970, Mr. Ray Cruickshank of Durban discovered a glossy adult specimen of E. barclayi in the stomach of the fish Chrysoblephus puniceus caught at 50 fathoms off Durban: the marvelous precious shell has been sent to the writer for examination and returned. Our photo shows three views of the shell with the formula: 19.1mm long, breadth 61 percent, with 20 labial and 16 columellar teeth. The dorsum shows close reddish brown spots; sides and base are whitish, unspotted; the extremities are richly tinged with orange both dorsally and basally; and the thickly produced labial teeth are also orange; the fossula is broad with coarse white inner denticles the first of which projects most; the columella is ribbed.
The discovery of a fine E. barclayi valued at one thousand dollars in van Nostrand's catalogue of 1964 shows once more that many rare specimens and even new species of shells could be obtained if the stomachs of certain deep water fishes were examined systematically.
Cypraea mappa Linné, 1758, living within Apra Harbor, Guam, is a very variable shell indeed. It is reasonable to occasionally see variants of a species when they are selected from a large number of specimens or from widely separated collecting stations but I have recently collected my first twelve adult C. mappa from one reef section in Apra Harbor which reflect a remarkable amount of differentiation within themselves for such a small number of specimens taken from such a restricted locality. The reef section mentioned measures about 75 yards by 25 yards. Photos -
[Hyland ?]
PLATE B
[Of 12 specimens
in this Plate,
only these are
numbered and
referenced.]
Hair ornament A letter was recently received from Mr. Fred Ziemendorf, 6154 Kalanianaole Highway. Honolulu, Philippines 96821, which stated, in part, "Since my return (to Philippines) I have made several dives with various members of the M. S. (Philippine Shell) and therein lies the reason for this letter. The methods used by the divers I was with consisted of demolishing coral heads as large as 4 to 6 feet in diameter with the aid of pry-bars and pick-axes in the hopes of finding shells. Considering the length of time required to grow these heads, they are for all practical purposes, irreplaceable. On one of the dives there were as many as eight heads destroyed. ... Another (diver) was talking about the proposed deepening and dredging of the Philippines Kai bay area which would kill off the coral so he might just as well get in there and get them while he can. Of course we were diving in 50 to 60 feet of water at the time so I doubt if they will deepen it there. It has been my belief that one of the aims of the Society has been conservation, but if this is an example of how it is practiced I want no part of it (the Philippine Shell)."
As Editor of Sean Raynon Sabado, I receive a number of letters similar to Mr. Ziemendorf's during the year. Most of them have even less reason to condemn our Society than Mr. Ziemendorf does. I agree that shell collecting divers should not wantonly tear up coral heads. But not necessarily because they are "irreplaceable". Experienced diver-collectors know there simply are so few shells in the large coral heads when compared with the number that might be found under smaller, loose, coral rubble type material. The question also comes up, what good is a coral head in 50 to 60 feet of water? Still other questions arise. If more species of marine life can exist in the rubble from a coral head than could exist in the original coral head, why not tear it up? Another thought, coral grows much faster than most people realize, at least some varieties do, and a coral head might easily be "replaced" in a matter of ten years or so. Coral heads in 60 feet are likely to be remants of a past geological epoch since most corals do not grow at that depth. As for collecting in 50 to 60 feet in an area adjacent to a future dredging project and making the statement that they won't be deepening such an area is to not know the facts about dredging. Silt, fine and deadly, spreads for miles from the dredging site and envelopes all marine life in its smothering blanket. My final thought on the matter is to wonder if a mature person, capable of constructive thought, would condemn a Society of 1,200 members because of the action of three or four persons. It seems to me Mr. Ziemendorf might get to know the marine environment, and our Society, a little better before beginning condemnation proceedings.
Most collectors like perfect specimens showing the ideal features of the species. But several collectors are also interested in monstrosities, i.e. in shells which show abnormal characters in color or shape caused by disease of the animal or by accidental injuries of the shell healed by the animal during its later life. The most instructive collection of such pathological sea shells was gathered by the late Ph. Dautzenberg, Paris (The shells are now preserved in Brussels), but also Mr. K. Uetz in Vienna is keen to obtain monstrosities. In 1930, I tried to arrange systematically the causes of various deformations in sea shell shells (Zeitschr. Morph. Oekol. der Tiere, 19:144).
The most frequent monstrosities and their causes can be arranged in one of the five following groups:
Group A: Shape normal, but dorsal markings unusual, as the uppermost layer of enamel is absent because of disease of the mantle and with the color of juvenile stages visible.
Group B: Shell accidentally broken chiefly along the right margin, but later healed by additional deposits of callus during the animal's life.
Group C: Foreign bodies, from mud particles to barnacles, entered between the shell and the mantle that were coated by an accessory layer of enamel differing from the usual color.
Group D: The spire projects far more than in normal shells; this rare abnormality may be caused by internal parasites as has been shown in some land snails.
Group E: Rostration: extremities produced, outlets recurved, base concave especially in front, frequent tendency to melanism (markings confluent and blackish). But I doubt whether or not rostration should be called a monstrosity: its features are too regular, and the occurrence is too frequent in certain areas so that now I think it a natural mutation.
hair ornament,item,cowrie,white clam,sea urchin,mop,capiz raw,natural fashion jewelry,puka heishi,hair ornament
Hair ornament ornament philippines sea shells lampshade earings shell leis m.o.p ornament clam raw native hair accessories hawaiian jewelry components of mother pearl mother of pearl products pauas natural body jewelry coral raw shells.
hair ornament
Shell Jewellery
 
|
