Since I am also a missle target, can I join this "club? I think this sounds
like a fantastic project and not beyond the ability of all us amateurs and
pros working together! I would also like to suggest that many of the dealers
who regularly monitor and/ or contribute here could also be of vast
assistance.
There is a parallel project in another "hobby" field- genealogy (tracing
family history). A few years back, one county in Kentucky started putting
records of genealogical interest on a website thinking that a few folks
would be interested. today, virtually every county around this country and
most other countries of Europe and the Americas has a Rootsweb site with
many millions of hits and E-mail connections yearly. The trick is start
small and be careful! So, hit me!  Karen
-----Original Message-----
From: David Kirsh <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: Telling things apart


>Way to go, Tom! So you've already done a lot of work on putting shells into
>some semblance of order with descriptions and images.
>
>I believe it is quite possible to launch a project to construct an
>identifier--one with limitations and especially one that is CONTINUALLY IN
>PROGRESS. The main barrier, I think, as you've pointed out, is the need for
>ground-rules and coordination.
>
>A site that can be built on and amended has some great advantages that will
>eventually overtake the utility of having a book or books with their
>limitations. I also imagine that such a project would benefit from starting
>out with common, shallow water species (leaving the esoterica for later, or
>worked on in parallel elsewhere). Using what's readily available and easy
>to agree on (well, there's got to be some), a website could be constructed
>that would serve as a central place for conchologists to register
>established information and for others to find that information and compare
>with theirs. No publication deadlines, no errors in perpetuity, no burnout
>for one particular expert. A living, breathing entity contributed to by
>many interested individuals (obviously, there needs to be some gatekeeping
>by the main coordinators).
>
>Currently, my impression is that there's a LOT of information out there and
>it's in disarray and fairly inaccessible (I'm trying to write with
>restraint). But computers and internet can put us into the 20th century as
>early as the first decade of the 21st century.
>
>[But, hey, while we're imagining this sort of
>Human-Genome-Project-gone-to-calcium-carbonate please don't relegate micros
>to last on the list of to-dos. Micros are beautiful, too, and get neglected
>too often. They're just not as obvious to collectors about their
>flamboyance.]
>
>OK, let's hear all the objections.
>
>David
>Durham, NC
>
>>Art,
>>
>>After a bit of research I was able to come up with some firm figures for
>>you.  We are talking big numbers at the family level and immense numbers
at
>>the generic level and unbelievable numbers at the sub-genera level.  I now
>>know this because I once made the statement on this list that I was trying
>>to get a representative sample of each family.  Numerous spear, arrow, and
>>shotgun wounds later I was made to understand  I was being a bit naive (to
>>put it nicely, many of the responses put it a bit more firmly).
>>
>>However, all of that aside, I think some sort of effort could prove
>>workable.  One of the things I like about Eisenberg's book is his
statement
>>up front that there are only about 2,500 collectable shells (and the
>>missiles head my way again).  I think he is a bit low in that number, but
it
>>helped him limit and define his coverage for his book.  He goes on to say
>>(or at least I interpret him to say) he eliminated micros, deep sea, very
>>rare or not available, and most subspecies.  He also, like most world wide
>>shell books, pretends like turrids do not exist.  So, maybe, if your idea
>>was approached with an upfront limit -- a limiting criteria and a target
no
>>lower than the genus level (I personally believe the sub-genera are too
much
>>in flux to use), it could be done.
>>
>>This is not to say we could build a key.  Those are very technical
>>structures, lots of rules and tough to do right for just a few species or
>>genera.  But a descriptive text and an illustration for each genus ought
to
>>be do-able!  The families (and associated genera) could be "parceled" out
>>and everyone doing the research and writing could be given a format, a
>>glossary of terms to use, and a sample or two.    The really tough part
>>(other than the unbelievable coordination required) would be locating the
>>original type description for each genus.  Without that you would be sure
to
>>miss some key distinguishing features.
>>
>>I personally built something similar on my computer for my own use.  It is
>>limited to the family level but contains a description and an image of
each
>>family I have (well, not each as it is still in progress and I haven't
even
>>touched the bivalves yet -- but I have most of the familiar gastropods
>>done).  I have the image, followed by the description, and then a list of
>>known species.  I built it like a web page with links to various pages and
>>eventually hoped to have an available image for many of the species.
>>Because it is on my hard drive and not for distribution (it is very, very
>>large - memory wise), I stole shell images shamelessly from the web.  I
now
>>have to go back and replace all that I can with images from my own
>>collection so I don't need to worry about copyright hassles.
>>
>>So there you have it.  A little more fuel for your unattainable fantasy.
>>
>>Tom Eichhorst in New Mexico, USA
>>
>>
>>> I started this thing---so I get to comment from time to time.
>>>         What I am thinking about is being able to distinguish shells
down
>>to
>>> the Sub-generic level. (How to tell a Plotzconus from an Umlautconus)
>>> NOT how to distinguish at the species level. You individual experts can
>>> do that. I'm thinking about a book that shows the distinguisments AND
>>> illustrates them---where to look on the shell. What numbers are we
>>> talking about? What numbers are we talking about if we limit it to
>>> univalves?
>>>         Q-Man
>>>