Date:         Tue, 1 Jun 1999 15:24:55 -0400
Reply-To:     Conchologists of America List <CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sender:       Conchologists of America List <CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Kurt Auffenberg <kauffe@FLMNH.UFL.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The Question Man
In-Reply-To:  <3752B3C5.43D1@fuse.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

There was no review system back then.  And ours is not fool proof.  Some
people publish via unreviewed vehicles.  Solem's Ba humbugi from Fiji was
described from a single specimen.  It had to be done.  Not only for the
name, but because the taxon represented a pretty important record of the
group for Fiji.  Other's single specimen descriptions won't be so
trustworthy, but I go back to my original thought.  Know thy creature and
all will come out alright.  If one is not willing to do a huge amount of
homework, perhaps a professional lifetime, then it's best to stay out of
the game. These names do indeed hang around forever, even when sunk into
synonomy.

By the way, I can't remember if/when this has been discussed.  What is the
most named organism????  I was told what it was and, lo and behold, it's a
mollusk....

Kurt



At 09:07 AM 5/31/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Dear All;-
>        Aha!!
>        But even if it is "zapped", a name remains in the literature for all
>time to re-found by some Phd candidate 200 years hence, and re-asserted
>as the true name for C. phonusbalonus Weil, 1999.
>        Look at poor Roding. We went back and found his name (Epitonium) for
>wentletraps. It has stood up. But roding also described some 40 species
>of "Epitoniidae" and not a single one of them has stood up. Do we have a
>better review system today?
>        QM
>