Conus figulinus Linnaeus, 1758

Franklin, J. Benjamin, Subramanian, K. A., Fernando, S. Antony & Krishnan, K. S., 2009, 2250, Zootaxa 2250, pp. 1-63 : 29-30

23. Conus figulinus Linnaeus, 1758 (Figure 24)

Conus figulinus Linnaeus, 1758: 715 , no. 267 (lectotype, LSL (65 x 42 mm) ( Kohn 1963); locality unknown).

Cucullus buxeus Röding, 1798: 42 , no. 530 (representation of lectotype, Martini 1773: pl. 59, fig. 656 (57 x 37 mm) (Kohn 1975); "Amboine").

Conus figulinus violascens Barros e Cunha, 1933: 37–38 (two syntypes, MZUC (SL 48 and 42 mm) ( Röckel et al. 1995); locality unknown).

Material examined: MBMCS 123 , 142 specimens, SL 22–84 mm; SW 14–46 mm .

Description. Shell medium sized to large, solid to heavy with high gloss. Body whorl ventricosely conical, posteriorly very convex with a narrow base, anterior third to quarter of body whorl with variable spiral ridges, these sometimes heavy or weak; rest of body whorl smooth, except for numerous axial threads and growth marks; shoulder rounded, flat or slightly convex above; spire very low or flat, early whorls form a small sharply pointed cone in the middle. Aperture wide, slightly flaring anteriorly; outer lip thick.

Body whorl grey to dark tan, usually densely covered with narrow uninterrupted dark brown spiral lines; top of shoulder and spire usually dark brown, contrasting with body whorl colouration. Interior of aperture bluish white to pale bluish. Siphon and foot black.

Distribution. Mitchell (1867) and Frauenfeld (1869) first reported C. figulinus from Madras. Subsequent records along the east coast are from Tuticorin ( Thurston 1895), Pamban ( Sundaram 1969) and Rameswaram ( Röckel et al. 1995). Along the west coast, Subrahmanyam et al. (1952) recorded specimens from Bombay. Museum specimens were reported by Kohn (1978) from Bombay (at ANSP), Travancore (at ZMS) and Malabar (at NMW).

The specimens described herein were collected by trawling in 5–50 m. This species was widely distributed in almost all stations of the northern region and found abundant in the Gulf of Mannar ( Table 6) .

Remarks. Conus figulinus is often mistaken for C. loroisii because of its similar shape, especially if the periostracum is intact. However, the absence of distinct brown spiral lines on the last whorl of C. loroisii distinguishes it from C. figulinus . In addition, C. loroisii and C. loroisii f. insignis do have similar shape and differ only in the colour pattern. The body whorl of C. loroisii f. insignis has more closely spaced blackish brown spiral lines from base to shoulder than C. figulinus . There are several views in assigning C. loroisii , C. figulinus and form insignis to a valid species / subspecies level ( Walls 1979; Coomans et al. 1979b; Tucker 1984; Richard 1990; Röckel et al. 1995). Richard (1990) assigned form insignis to C. loroisii and declared C. loroisii as a valid species. Recently, Röckel et al. (1995) have clearly analysed earlier literatures as well the morphological charaters and defined that C. figulinus and C. loroisii as distinct species. Also they have assigned form insignis to C. loroisii . We agree and have followed Röckel et al. (1995).

Conus figulinus is often landed with C. betulinus , C. loroisii and other gastropods such as turrids, Xancus pyrum Linnaeus , Hemifusus pugilinus Born , and Babylonia spirata Linnaeus.

Previous records suggested C. figulinus is a shallow water species, but we observed this species to occur in both deep and shallow fine sand and algal bottoms. A large population of this species was observed around the sea grass bottoms of Oodai (Mandapam) indicating a specific preference.

Living C. figulinus , C. monile and C. loroisii are found with sea anemones on their shell surface (Figure 62J, K & L).