CONCH-L Archives

Conchologists List

CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Stephanie Clark <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Conchologists of America List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 21 Jul 2000 02:57:46 +1000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (53 lines)
Andrew S and others

As has already been mentioned it is very unwise to use an unpublished name
when referring to a potentially undescribed species. For several reasons -
amongst which is there is now a record of the name you mentioned on the
internet and which other people can now find and technically cite. It is
also not wise to mention the unpublished name because you could
accidentally provide enough information about the specimen in a newsletter,
newspaper, etc for it to become a valid name. Now this can cause some major
problems especially for the person who was originally thinking of
describing the species that you have now become the official author of etc.

Another reason not to refer to an unpublished name is that the person who
originally thought the shell was different may have changed their mind on
getting additional specimens and taking into consideration other factors
such as reproductive anatomy, radular morphology, protoconch morphology,
opercular morphology, egg capsule morphology, breeding behaviour, allozyme
data (proteins, enzyme data), DNA data etc. (Which I might add particularly
for most supposed new species of Cones, Cowries and Volutes virtually none
of the above are used to justify the new species this especially goes for
reproductive anatomy and genetic data.)  (Just to back this up a little of
the 1600 papers dealing with molluscan allozymes (proteins) I have found
while doing my Masters and PhD none mention Cones, Volutes or Cowries which
are the most popular shells collected.)

The best way to refer to a shell which you or others thinks is new is by
saying something like the following:   Cypraea sp A. or Cypraea sp 210 or
Cypraea sp nov from Port Lincoln or Cypraea gold form SA etc.

By referring to the shell in some way like the above the shell has some
sort of tag to suggest that it might be new or different in some way, but
prevents you or some one else from inadvertently making the name
scientifically available before the original author had planned to.

So I hope the above makes it a bit more clearer as to some of the reasons
you should not mention an  unpublished name.


Stephanie (who should be doing PhD stuff)


******************************************************************************
Stephanie A. Clark

Invertebrate Identification
Unit 4/17 Morris Street
PO Box 418
Summer Hill, NSW 2130
Australia

phone  61 (02) 9799 5689  fax  61 (02) 9799 5610  mobile  0412 372388
email [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2