Size is an approximate. Shell most likely acid treated. Siphon broken and with some chips. One figer missing on the lip. One finger chipped, 3 of the fingers in good condition. Some lines. Apex gone as usual.
Note: This set is either for the collector of localities, as Indonesia is not typical, but also not rare on the current market, or for the beginning collection. Always a nice species to put as a decoration in the living room or coffee table to start a talk about shells.
The nomenclatural history of this species alone is a story worth telling:
In 1758, Linnaeus described Murex fusus. The description and reference point toward the beige shell from the Indonesia-Philippines area we now know as Tibia fusus. However, the material in London and Uppsala are all shells of a different species, being the Ethiopean species called Tibia insulaechorab in current literature. Kronenberg & Burger did designate a lectotype for the species: the reference to Gualtieri was decided upon. I agree with this vision.
But why are the shells in London and Uppsala not the true Tibia fusus? Well, at one point, the queen most likely had a real Tibia fusus that Linnaeus saw before the publication of his 10th edition of the Systema Naturae (1758). This was also included in his "Museum Ulrikae" in 1764, which is also based on the same visit he did to the queens collection before publishing the 10th edition. Linnaeus described the shell as being "yellowish white", pointing at the shell we now know as Tibia fusus. The shell from the queen is likely sold off at some point because the queen needed to sell some of her doubles for money. This shell was never returned to Uppsala and is lost in time. The 2 shells belonging to the Ethiopean species are most likely aquired after 1758. Linnaeus just thought both where one and the same species. Mystery solved!
