I had forgotten about those shells that
> were only accompanied by a figure.  I hope the illustrations were more
> like the quality of Poli (1795), because Wood's illustrations are not
> very helpful.
>
> Bret

Bret,
  Usually author's referenced other works where illustrations could be
found.  For instance you will find references to Martini and Chemnitz in
Wood's work.  Althought M&C is not felt to be available for nomenclatural
purposes (they did not always follow the rules of binominal nomenclature)
one could use the figures; and they are quite a bit larger than those in
Wood's.  Now to defend Wood, his work was to make a good summary of
conchological works for the common person who could not afford an extensive
library. Here I feel he successed admirably.

Regards,
Charlie
******************************************************************************
Charlie Sturm, Jr
Research Associate - Section of Mollusks
                     Carnegie Museum of Natural History
                     Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Assistant Professor - Family Medicine

[log in to unmask]


On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Bret Raines wrote:

> Henk,
>
> Thank you for the information  I had forgotten about those shells that
> were only accompanied by a figure.  I hope the illustrations were more
> like the quality of Poli (1795), because Wood's illustrations are not
> very helpful.
>
> Bret
>
> Henk and Zvia Mienis wrote:
>
> >  Bret, the Pectenid species you mentioned was not validly described
> > because of the word "prickly"; the scientific name was accompanied by
> > a figure! That's the reason why Wood's name was accepted as a valid
> > one. Many of the early names were simply based on a figure and
> > scientific name only, without any addition like "prickly", "smooth" or
> > whitish". Henk K. Mienis [log in to unmask]
> >
> >      ----- Original Message -----
> >      From: Bret Raines
> >      To: [log in to unmask]
> >      Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 6:09 PM
> >      Subject: World Record for the Shortest Description.
> >       Hello Fellow Shellers,
> >
> >      I believe, that I know what the World Record is for the
> >      shortest shell description, which is still considered valid
> >      under the ICZN.
> >
> >      Aequipecten muscosus (Wood, 1828) ... "prickly"
> >
> >      Can anyone bet that?
> >
> >      Bret
> >
> >
> >
> >
>