Amen to this!

Gijs

----------
> Van: Paul Callomon <[log in to unmask]>
> Aan: [log in to unmask]
> Onderwerp: Re: How to deal with magazine bibliography
> Datum: zaterdag 11 september 1999 4:37
>
> > My question is: if you need to check for a shell (example: Strombus
> > ochroglottis), how do you search for it in your magazines/articles? One
by
> > one? Do you keep a kind of title database? If positive, how do you do
it?
>
> Many questions posted to Conch-L concern the identifying of specimens
from
> literature. Just the other day, someone was asking for a decision between
> two different representations of a Kobelt species in various books -
which
> one was correct?
> The hallmark of a serious collector is the level to which they seek out
> relevant literature. The absolute ideal is for every specimen to be
> identified from the primary literature - the original description - or
from
> a figure of the type. This is not always even possible; many species have
> no identifiable type, and many types have not been figured since the
> original description. This most often the case with species published
> before 1860, but the problem was by no means unknown after that either.
> With over 100,000 readily-collectible species in the Mollusca and over a
> hundred regularly-published molluscan journals, it is obvious that no-one
> who is not a retired millionaire will be able to build up a library from
> which any specimen they receive can be definitively identified. How much
> harder this task would be, then, for the average collector who buys
> specimens from dealers (many of whom have no greater grasp of the
> literature than their customers, and rely as heavily on dog-eared copies
of
> Abbot's Compendium and their own imaginations as anyone else) or collects
> shells themselves in an area for which no comprehensive guide to the
> Mollusca has yet been written?
> There is only one answer : to specialise in a particular family or genus.
> This reduces the volume of literature needed to a few standard works plus
> articles published on that particular group. How to find the latter?
Well,
> here's where it might be necessary to go outside the house. If you are a
> citizen of the USA, any European country or anywhere else with a
scientific
> establishment worth the name, your country will have maintained (using
your
> money, mind you) a library of scientific literature. In the USA these are
> everywhere; most universities have good libraries, as do many state
capitals.
> How does one go about collecting the literature on a particular family?
In
> the aforementioned library, they should have the Zoological Record. The
bit
> which is of interest to us is section 9, the Mollusca. Starting at the
> latest year, look through the systematic index and pick out the family
> which you are studying. There you will find listed every article on that
> family published in that year (and maybe some earlier ones which have
been
> listed late). Photocopy this section and the relevant bibliographical
> entries, then do the same for the year before that and so on. In most
> families, if you get the last 50 years' worth (the Zoological Record has
> been going since 1870) you will have a listing of the vast majority of
the
> relevant literature in that group, along with notes on the taxonomical
acts
> contained in it (new species, transfer of species to different genera,
new
> classifications and so on). Armed with this, and a few evenings spent
> reading through it, you will be able to form a picture of the situation
in
> that group - who the main current authors (and authorities) are, how
stable
> the group is (two major revisions in thirty years suggests a lot of
> argument, for example).
> Having thus got a handle on what is out there, it is then necessary to
> target a few works on the list which seem like they will be of use to
you.
> Obviously, if you are after pictures, then those works with plates and
> figures come first; if you want an overview of the group then look for
> Revisions or Systematic Reviews.
> Now comes the tedious part : writing to the various authors (most of
whom,
> if not actually dead, can be sought out via the Internet very easily) and
> asking them for reprints of their work. Most authors (not all...) are
happy
> to oblige; many sit in offices whose interior space is shrinking rapidly
> due to mountains of unclaimed reprints.
> The same library should have at least some of the Great Works - Reeve,
> Sowerby, Martini and Chemnitz and so on. Sadly, institutional paranoia on
> the one hand and the real danger of theft on the other have conspired to
> make access to these works harder for the layman in recent years, but it
is
> not too difficult to prove your bona fides to a librarian and get to see
> them. What you really want are photocopies of the figures in your pet
> group; many libraries keep monochrome copies of some of the really
ancient,
> fragile works from which acceptable xeroxes can be made. Add these to
your
> library and you are really getting somewhere. Subscribe to the lists of
the
> various book- and reprint dealers - Naturama, Wheldon and Wesley, R. E.
> Petit and so on - and spend a little on some of the less
> extortionately-priced books. 'Collectors - they'll spend a thousand bucks
> on a shell but won't spend ten bucks on a shell book' as one dealer of my
> acquaintance laments. In the example I gave above (from an actual Conch-L
> thread), the species in question was figured originally. Find out where
> (Martini and Chemnitz, in this case) and for the cost of a stamp and a
> little politeness you could have a xerox of the original figure on your
desk.
>
> A useful rule for identifying specimens from pictures : treat all
specimens
> as unidentified or provisionally identified until you have seen a picture
> of the type. Just because this book shows a picture with this name under
it
> does not make that a correct identification! In my own field, the Cones,
> some of the standard books are full of misidentifications, and the number
> of spurious 'species' is staggering. This is what makes type figures such
> as those reproduced by Kohn in his magnificent 'Chronological Taxonomy'
so
> valuable. Make a note on each label of the book or paper you used to make
> the identification, or whether this is an 'inherited' identification from
a
> dealer or colleague. Create a special mark to show when you have made an
> identification from the primary literature. Apart from anything else,
each
> new 'checked with the type' mark vastly increases the scientific value of
> your collection.
>
> As you can see from all the above, identifying your specimens is not just
a
> matter of hauling Abbot off the shelf and trying to get a good match. The
> pursuit of type figures is fascinating detective work, in the course of
> which you will meet and get to know the people who really understand the
> group you have chosen, many of whom may become firm friends. Your
diligence
> in identifying specimens and building up your library will benefit them
> too, and pro-amateur relationships like this, built up over the years,
are
> the lifeblood of the biological sciences.
>
> Of course, if you don't mind being wrong then you can keep a collection
of
> ten thousand specimens in a hundred families, all gems, which have cost
you
> thousands of dollars, and not worry about it; but you may find that some
> species are called different things by different people....