Alexandra Vandergeer geeraae at GEOL.UOA.GR
Tue Jan 27 08:45:56 UTC 2009

No, all conches are marine indeed, no such thing in a river. If you're
right with your idea of the anchor place of the animal's body (muscular
foot) to the shell, maybe the artist got the idea when eating snails. In
snails it's quite clear, and snails are eaten by the thousands.


> "... he is not very conch-like, except perhaps for the blob-like form on
> his abdomen."
> Is it possible that the blob-like form represents the bit of muscle where
> the conch's body attaches firmly to the shell?  That is assuming there is
> such a spot in conchs.
> I was wondering if there might be such a thing as riverine conchs, but the
> wiki article Conch indicates that all conchs in the strict sense, i.e.
> gensus Strombus. as well as other shells called conch, including the
> "sacred conch" or Shankha (Turbinella pyrum), are marine animals.  So few
> Indian artists indeed would have had the chance of seeing anything more of
> a conch that the empty shell.  Could one have gotten the idea there was
> spot where the animal's flesh was anchored to its shell by looking at land
> or freshwater snails?
> Pure speculation but I thought it might be of some small interest.
> Allen
> Allen W. Thrasher, Ph.D.
> Senior Reference Librarian
> Team Coordinator
> South Asia Team, Asian Division
> Library of Congress, Jefferson Building 150
> 101 Independence Ave., S.E.
> Washington, DC 20540-4810
> tel. 202-707-3732; fax 202-707-1724; athr at
> The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Library of
> Congress.

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list