Dear Andrew,



Milan just warned me that his shells from an ongoing exchange with me have
incorrect data. He fortunately found this out and was apparently cheated by
his supplier. In this particular case we are safe.

However, I want to point out that the vast majority of our shells comes with
correct labels, at least the labels that we get are copied and going with
the same text to the collector. Modifications that we apply are for example
missing country, and we put it in an always identical order, starting with
the country, finishing with biotope and date.
Our well known Philippine supplier makes a data slip FOR EVERY shell.
In rare other cases exact data are not supplied. This is often so when it
concerns deep water material, where the people invested huge amounts to find
the shells and they want to keep, understandable, the GPS data secret in
order to avoid competition from other boats.

Russian derived specimen are occasionally very correct, but often very
vague. Some of the fisherman collect without taking notes on the spots. They
then sell everything in a bunch to collectors/dealers as for example "from
Saya de Malha".

Now, there is for sure a tendency in labeling that becomes better and
better. If one compares the labels from the seventies with the labels of
today: these are two different worlds, and this is very positive.

The latest modern collectors use GPS. From two collecting trips this year,
80 % of our shells have correct GPS info, most often to 5 or 9 m correct !
Lorenz also supplied many shells on the latest shell show with extensive GPS
data.

I want to take the opportunity to answer the following:

> He contacted Poppe to complain about this. Poppe's reply was that he
> did not have time (ie couldn't be bothered) to correct the data!


This concerns two matters: wrong determination, fake localities.

As for the determination, we do an effort to have correct names, from where
hundreds of hours a year with the nose in the library, who is extensive. But
I'll not go and check a "Limacina bulimoides (d'Orbigny)" when these shells
are labeled as such. When it concerns a Volute (or most other popular
families), of course, this will be corrected. The effort can be seen in the
number of references to literature under remarks.

Fake localities: if the mistake (or falsification) is obvious, or we suspect
faking, then we react. But in normal come and go shells we have simply no
time to check where is for example "Cape Brett" in new Zealand, and if this
locality is plausible for this New Zealand shell or not. In this we have to
rely on the suppliers of course.

I hope this is usefull information for you and others. In case there are
questions or positive critics, they are welcome.

With best regards, Guido





‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹
Visit Conchology, with over 50000 names with author, 3800 indicated type
species, 5000 conchological images, and fun with shells.
http://www.conchology.be/
For Information on A Conchological Iconography
http://www.conchology.be/iconography/iconography.html
Register, consult, comment and search
http://www.animals4ever.com
‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹


> From: Andrew Grebneff <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Conchologists of America List <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 04:24:39 +0200
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Incorrect data being supplied by G. Poppe & others
>
> I am alarmed to hear (from an impeccable source) that he had supplied
> Guido Poppe witth specimens he had collected himself. He has since
> found that the data being supplied by Poppe on sale of these
> specimens is incorrect.
>
> He contacted Poppe to complain about this. Poppe's reply was that he
> did not have time (ie couldn't be bothered) to correct the data!
>
> I know that at least SOME Russian suppliers are supplying FALSIFIED
> data. A friend in Slovenia sent me some "abyssal"  New Zealand shells
> he'd bought, collected by a Russian trawler and supplied to him by a
> reputableperson. The depth data did not at all tie with marine
> charts, which showed twice the depth (5000m-odd) in the area, and the
> species involved do not come anywhere near the claimed depth of
> 2100m. A quick e-mail to Bruce Marshall drew the reply that "this is
> a complete fabrication".
>
> Beware of Russian-derived specimens.