I guess I have to jump in here for a little bit.  It would be different for
shells because a holotype has to be illustrated and deposited into an
appropriate institution.

This naming opportunity (for both researcher and donor) is not much
different than someone donating a chunk of money to fund an expedition.
There are lots of streeti's from the Street Expedition into Afghanistan in
the 1960's.  There are probably hundreds of other examples, but it's late
in the day. My little brain isn't working too well.  The Street's were
surely aware that species would be named in their honor, although that was
probably not their sole intent.  Good science was done in a poorly known
part of the world with the Street's money, they were rewarded in the only
way science could have rewarded them..........not to mention the possible
income tax deduction that was probably available back then.........

I see nothing wrong with it.  Both parties know what's going to happen.  It
may considering vain of the donor by some, but who really cares?  It may be
considered prostitution on the part of the researcher by some, but does it
really matter?  Science is being done.  Science costs money.  People are
immortalized.  It makes them happy.

Kurt

At 12:25 PM 3/8/2000 PST, you wrote:
>hi all;
>
>Will the shell name for fee be the same?
>
>Thomas Clenche
>Snowing for 4 days straight in Newfoundland.
>