Dear fellow conch-lers,

David Campbell wrote:

>I suppose one could argue that the American Malacological Society Bulletin
>could be regarded as a shell club publication.  A valid publication must be
>properly published and widely available.

Not true, the American Malacological Bulletin is peer-reviewed, and shell
club publications are not.

>I believe that it is official
>that it should be properly peer-reviewed, although people have gotten away
>with highly dubious levels of review.  Thus, something you type up,
>photocopy, and hand around at the next club meeting is inadequate.

Unfortunately, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature does not
require that new names (or other nomenclatural changes) should be published
in peer-reviewed journals.

>However, if your shell club publishes a scientific journal and distributes
>it to major research institutions, then that would probably be a suitable
>place to publish.  Of course, you can always pass descriptions around your
>shell club as a way of getting feedback.

Although there might be some shell clubs that publish "scientific journals"
(assuming that one of the requisites for a journal to be "scientific" is
for it to be peer-reviewed), I haven't heard of any. Could you give an
example?

I am member of COA and a number of shell clubs and have though the years
maintained intense levels of cooperation and interaction with shell clubs
and the shelling community in Florida and "abroad". I just don't think that
shell club newsletters are appropriate vehicles for the publication of new
taxa.

Best wishes,

José
__________________________________________________________________________
José H. Leal, Ph.D.
Director, The Bailey-Matthews Shell Museum
Editor, THE NAUTILUS
[log in to unmask]
3075 Sanibel-Captiva Road
Sanibel, FL 33957 USA
(941) 395-2233; fax (941) 395-6706