Does "best sheller" include arm chair shellers or is that a separate
category?  And who would be best arm chair shellers.
Ardeth
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Lamprell <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, December 18, 1998 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: best sheller
 
 
>I think the term "best sheller" is in itself a bit wide in its
>interpetration as can be seen by the various replies to Conch-L, but
>there must be one gentleman who must surely rate in this catagory.
>
>Hugh Cuming (1791-1865) was a successful sail-maker who having done well
>financially purchased and outfitted a large boat and set sail on several
>expeditions firstly around Polynesia, the next around the W coast of
>America (1828-30) and the Philippines 1836-40.
>
>These journeys earned him the title Prince of Shell collectors (see
>Dance, Peter A History of Shell Collecting 1966-1986).
>
>Cumings huge collections were distributed and donated to the many
>leading malacologists/conchologists and institutions of the times for
>naming and their collections.
>
>Everyone of your collections would have many of the Cuming species, and
>all his work was done, not for money but for the love of natural
>history, lets take our hats of to old Hugh.
>
>Kev Lamprell
>
>Paul Monfils wrote:
>>
>> I am not going to suggest a candidate for this dubious "honor".
>> However, Linnaeus would NOT be the first name to come to my mind.  He
>> was the "father of taxonomy" and for that, malacologists are indebted
>> to him; but they have no more claim on him than mammalogists,
>> ornithologists, herpetologists, ichthyologists, and innumerable other
>> "ists", not the least of which is botanists.  I'm sure Linnaeus didn't
>> consider himself a "sheller".  He certainly couldn't be called a
>> malacologist, since he didn't recognize mollusks as a distinct
>> entity.  He divided the animal kingdom into seven major categories
>> (the actual concept of "phylum" came about later) - mammals, birds,
>> reptiles, amphibians, fishes, insects, and worms.  The mollusks,
>> along with most other invertebrates, he classified as "worms".  His
>> objective was to name and classify all objects of nature - mineral,
>> plant, and animal.  He did this not to provide a foundation for other
>> sciences, nor to compile a body of information, but for the process
>> itself - he enjoyed classifying things.  He was a great naturalist,
>> but there is no indication that he had any special affinity for what
>> we know as the mollusks.  They were just one of the many elements
>> which his ambitious project required him to deal with.  Given the
>> many prominent individuals who have devoted their entire professional
>> lives to the study of mollusks, I'd have to say Linnaeus would be a
>> poor choice for "best sheller".
>> Paul M.
>