Hi all,

(That's pronounced YAWL, by the way.) I've been reading the recent postings
on naming new species with some interest, and would like to clear up some of
the confusion that may be mounting out there in Shell Land.

The Rules of Nomenclature (ICZN, International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature) are intentionally kept loose in some aspects, strict in
others. For instance, new species must be named in a scientific publication,
but what constitutes a "scientific publication" is partially left open to
interpretation. Still, most of us understand what a scientific publication
is most of the time. The common understanding is that science is developed
by a community of people, not necessarily by individuals. The ICZN says
nothing about this, but scientists generally think that a scientific
publication must be reviewed by other people before publication to remove
errors, clear up trouble spots, reduce verbiage, etc. So, for instance, a
book that is published by an author through a vanity press without prior
review may be sniffed at by scientists these days. Peer review developed as
a way to make science more efficient by reducing error, not as a way to
exclude others.

Knowledge that is not communicated publicly is not science, so, for
instance, research conducted by private companies is not "science" in the
strict sense. You can see how important the scientific publication is to the
scientist! Without publication, there IS no science.

Also, science consists of ideas that can be tested by others; we say that it
is "repeatable". Obviously, in practice, scientists do not spend most of
their time repeating other people's research; no one has the time to do all
that checking. So in practice, we make sure that anything we say in a paper
CAN be repeated if someone is so inclined, and enough things are checked by
others to keep the system honest. Even in the extreme case of a unique
holotype, in principle someone could fish the same waters and find another
example of that species to test ideas about it. Might be expensive, but it
could be done.

How many specimens are required to name a new species? Less than one! Many
fossil species are known from fragments. If you think about it, how many
species of dinosaurs are known from complete skeletons? Hardly any! But the
Code DOES require a type specimen. Without a type specimen, it's very hard
to repeat and extend observations and be sure, absolutely sure, that you are
dealing with the same species.

How many copies of a book or journal must be made for a new species to be
"published"? The ICZN does not say! But the Code does require (among other
things) that the publication be available by gift or purchase. The usual
college thesis does not meet this standard.

So now let's look at the status of the typical shell club newsletter. It's
not reviewed by scientists, it's not usually intended for scientists, and
availability to non-members may or may not be problematic. Usually the
number of copies is very small, and unless someone makes a special effort,
they all end up in private hands without any being available in public
libraries. We call it a "gray publication", because it falls in the gray
area between information that is fully published and not published at all. A
shell club newsletter is not the best place to name a new species.

Still... A few shell club newsletters gradually became more professional
over time and are now considered to be scientific journals. Didn't The
Veliger begin as a shell club newsletter? (Could someone please tell us the
history of that?)

Andrew K. Rindsberg
Geological Survey of Alabama