Basic info Taxonomic history Classification Relationships
Morphology Ecology and taphonomy External Literature Search Age range and collections

Conus spurius

Gastropoda - Neogastropoda - Conidae

Synonymy list
YearName and author
1791Conus spurius Gmelin p. 19 figs. pl. 10, figs. 4, 5
1792Conus proteus Hwass pp. 682-683 figs. pl. 334, figs. 1-2
1792Conus leoninus Hwass in BruguiƩre p. 683 figs. pl. 334, figs. 5, 6, 9
1917Conus proteus Maury p. 42
1922Conus proteus Olsson p. 43
1928Conus (Lithoconus) proteus Woodring p. 204
1964Conus cherokus Olsson and Petit p. 538
1970Conus spurius Woodring p. 348
1990Conus lemoni Petuch p. 103 figs. figs. 16, 17
1991Conus (Lithoconus) spengleri Petuch pp. 53-54 figs. pl. 10, figs. 2-3
1991Conus (Lithoconus) streami Petuch pp. 53-54 figs. pl. 10, figs. 2-3
1994Conus (Lithoconus) cherokus Petuch pp. pl. 93, fig. a
1994Conus (Lithoconus) lemoni Petuch figs. pl. 92, fig. l
1994Conus (Lithoconus) spurius Petuch figs. pl. 93, fig. f
1994Conus (Lithoconus) jeremyi Petuch pp. 354-355 figs. pl. 93, fig. d
1994Conus (Lithoconus) martinshugari Petuch p. 355 figs. pl. 93, fig. h
1994Conus (Lithoconus) micanopy Petuch p. 355 figs. pl. 93, fig. h
1994Conus (Lithoconus) streami Petuch p. 356 figs. pl. 93, fig. 3
2004Spuriconus cherokus Petuch figs. pl. 256, fig. 6
2004Spuriconus lemoni Petuch figs. pl. 90, fig. b
2004Spuriconus micanopy Petuch figs. pl. 89, fig. b
2004Spuriconus spengleri Petuch figs. pl. 86, fig. e
2004Spuriconus streami Petuch figs. pl. 66, fig. k
2008Conus spurius Hendricks p. 19
2009Spuriconus spurius Tucker and Tenorio p. 121
2010Conus spurius Landau and Marques da Silva p. 102

Is something missing? Join the Paleobiology Database and enter the data

EubilateriaAx 1987
classGastropodaCuvier 1797
subclassProsobranchiaMilne-Edwards 1848
superorderCaenogastropodaCox 1959
orderNeogastropodaThiele 1929
superfamilyConoidea(Rafinesque 1815)
familyConidaeFleming 1822
speciesspuriusGmelin 1791

If no rank is listed, the taxon is considered an unranked clade in modern classifications. Ranks may be repeated or presented in the wrong order because authors working on different parts of the classification may disagree about how to rank taxa.

No diagnoses are available