I agree fully , using the amount of say ten is far too many , and you're
right that at least 2 specimens would prove more practical, only one other
problem here , there are many species that are named on a single specimen so
then what happens ? I don't think this would add to anyone's popularity, M
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Monfils <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, October 05, 1998 2:40 PM
Subject: mutations -Reply
 
 
>Mark,
>What you say certainly has validity.  More than once the single
>specimen used to describe a species has later turned out to be a
>form, or even a wierd individual variant (a "freak", so to speak) of
>an existing species.  On the other hand, requiring the collection of
>ten specimens before naming a species could take many years, perhaps
>even a century or more in some cases.  Such current or former
>rarities as Conus gloriamaris, Conus cervus, Cypraea valentia,
>Cypraea leucodon, etc. were known from either a single specimen or
>very few specimens for many years before the 10th specimen was
>discovered.  Personally I would like to see at least a second
>specimen emerge before a new species is described, but even that is
>not always the case.
>Paul M.
>Rhode Island
>