I remember those days of the Kurz lists!

The conchologist, the collector and the dealer works almost exclusively with a
specialized fraction of the whole animal and there is the tendency to make
conclusions without all of the information.  This is not good science, no
matter who is doing it. Advice to future splitters: reference species by the
locality of populations and keep the number of specific names to a minimum
until there is some sound biological evidence for a new name.

A good example of locality form difference is the Philippine vs. the Srilanka
Murex palmarosae they are obviously very different, concologically, even to a
beginning collector.  A knowledgeable collector knows what to expect in the
mail when they see this species listed from either of these two localities.  An
added benefit of making locality more prominent in the description of animals
is that even the casual student will more about geography and the locations of
different countries.

Monfils, Paul wrote:

>         It isn't a shell dealer's plot.  Shell dealers, by and large, don't
> assign taxonomic names.  They just use the names that taxonomists have
> applied.  This tendency reached its peak some thirty years ago, and nowhere
> was it more pronounced than in the Cypraeidae, thanks largely to a famous
> husband and wife team of taxonomists and a few other notorious splitters of
> the day.  Those who are old enough (oops, I mean mature enough) no doubt
> remember those long lists from Richard Kurz and other dealers, with 400
> different taxa of Cypraeidae listed - including 15 to 20
> forms/varieties/subspecies of Cypraea caurica, maybe 8 or 10 varieties of
> Cypraea gracilis, yes and even a half dozen subspecies of Cypraea moneta,
> Cypraea caputserpentis, and Cypraea lynx.  The thing that always annoyed me
> was that if you ordered a dozen of the listed varieties of Cypraea caurica,
> at least six of them would look virtually identical.  I don't consider
> myself a lumper - things with obvious differences should be split (remember
> when Cypraea diluculum was a subspecies of Cypraea ziczac?!!).  But I am
> relieved that the splitting craze of the 50's and 60's has subsided
> somewhat, and we are in a period of relative balance!
>         Paul M.