Yes , Stephanie ,
I think it is the best way to deal with unpublished sp.
If it looks like, in my case (Marginella's) I put
M. cf.limbata ,  that means con form (looks like , but is quite different )
as you will certainly know , and if it doesn't look like anything I have
ever seen , I just put Marginella sp. nov , or Dentimargo sp. nov 1 , 2,
etc.
The addition cf. I only use when I discuss in letters the species concerning
,for I accept a lot of differences to exist in one species without even
naming the usually used form name.But that is my opinion , I don't like to
split , neither to lump species .One can get sometimes very confused if
everyone starts to use his /hers own names for such new sp.
thanks for the discussion ,
Jan Neefs
----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
Van: "Stephanie Clark" <[log in to unmask]>
Aan: <[log in to unmask]>
Verzonden: donderdag 20 juli 2000 18:57
Onderwerp: Re: use of unpublished names


> 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 As has already been mentioned it is very unwise to use an unpublished name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 also not wise to mention the unpublished name because you could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 Another reason not to refer to an unpublished name is that the person who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]
>