It is with interest we followed the discussion about holotypes etc...

We should stay realistic: there are not that many molluscan species
described each year, surely not many without decent research, and very few
forms are still described today. (Not enough in my personal opinion - but
then if one describes a form, critics are that huge that most authors
renounce - with all the problems staying "pending"). Also, I don't
understand very well the problems around naming forms: or is it for other
authors "too much work" to learn about all the forms in a given species ?
It's not because the ICZN does not recognize them they don't exist. They
exist and should be documented, either with or without names.

Almost all types end up in good or bad institutions. The same institutions
are in the majority of the cases not able to handle the material decently:
after 20 years of internet, only a fraction of the holotypes can be found
there. This is ridiculous but a reality. Reasons are multiple: not enough
funding, reluctant to "work", keeping the types as an attraction to get
visitors - if they are public, who is going to visit the museum ? And many
other reasons.

About peer review: experts on the contents of articles are a problem: in 90
% of the cases there are no experts able to judge another ones work on its
content and if they are, on the same popular group, human feelings are
playing such a role that subjectivity makes objective expertise impossible
in the major part of the cases.  Literature in some groups, such as
Cypraeidae, occasionally looks like a battlefield !

In general I think things are positive today: most of the molluscan species
described in recent times are valid, published either in public or private
papers, with or without peer review, and the large majority of the types
goes to the institutions they should go to.

Instead of discussing the 5 % of things going wrong, people should spend
their time in describing the many  thousands of undescribed species, or
studying what we don't know of all the described species. This is a vast job.

More good news: the ICZN is working very hard to solve all the problems
around publishing. The major problem is that after 5 years, a large
percentage of original descriptions can no longer be traced back. So, the
ICZN is thinking about an online database obligatory for all new
descriptions, so nothing is getting lost.  But this database goes in pair
with much secondary effects: how are journals going to survive if all
information can be found on the web. What about the "peer reviews" ? Etc...
etc... also, is the scientific community going to follow these decisions ? I
think there is no problem for malacologists/conchologists, but in some
groups, such as insects, researchers are more individualistic, and they may
not like the idea and "in mass" not follow the upcoming regulations.

Guido, just back from a lot of traveling, members of Conch-L waiting for
answers on emails will get them this week ! Sorry for the delays.

Mabuhay from Mactan island, the Philippines.

Guido T. Poppe

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------