Way to go, Tom! So you've already done a lot of work on putting shells into
some semblance of order with descriptions and images.

I believe it is quite possible to launch a project to construct an
identifier--one with limitations and especially one that is CONTINUALLY IN
PROGRESS. The main barrier, I think, as you've pointed out, is the need for
ground-rules and coordination.

A site that can be built on and amended has some great advantages that will
eventually overtake the utility of having a book or books with their
limitations. I also imagine that such a project would benefit from starting
out with common, shallow water species (leaving the esoterica for later, or
worked on in parallel elsewhere). Using what's readily available and easy
to agree on (well, there's got to be some), a website could be constructed
that would serve as a central place for conchologists to register
established information and for others to find that information and compare
with theirs. No publication deadlines, no errors in perpetuity, no burnout
for one particular expert. A living, breathing entity contributed to by
many interested individuals (obviously, there needs to be some gatekeeping
by the main coordinators).

Currently, my impression is that there's a LOT of information out there and
it's in disarray and fairly inaccessible (I'm trying to write with
restraint). But computers and internet can put us into the 20th century as
early as the first decade of the 21st century.

[But, hey, while we're imagining this sort of
Human-Genome-Project-gone-to-calcium-carbonate please don't relegate micros
to last on the list of to-dos. Micros are beautiful, too, and get neglected
too often. They're just not as obvious to collectors about their
flamboyance.]

OK, let's hear all the objections.

David
Durham, NC

>Art,
>
>After a bit of research I was able to come up with some firm figures for
>you.  We are talking big numbers at the family level and immense numbers at
>the generic level and unbelievable numbers at the sub-genera level.  I now
>know this because I once made the statement on this list that I was trying
>to get a representative sample of each family.  Numerous spear, arrow, and
>shotgun wounds later I was made to understand  I was being a bit naive (to
>put it nicely, many of the responses put it a bit more firmly).
>
>However, all of that aside, I think some sort of effort could prove
>workable.  One of the things I like about Eisenberg's book is his statement
>up front that there are only about 2,500 collectable shells (and the
>missiles head my way again).  I think he is a bit low in that number, but it
>helped him limit and define his coverage for his book.  He goes on to say
>(or at least I interpret him to say) he eliminated micros, deep sea, very
>rare or not available, and most subspecies.  He also, like most world wide
>shell books, pretends like turrids do not exist.  So, maybe, if your idea
>was approached with an upfront limit -- a limiting criteria and a target no
>lower than the genus level (I personally believe the sub-genera are too much
>in flux to use), it could be done.
>
>This is not to say we could build a key.  Those are very technical
>structures, lots of rules and tough to do right for just a few species or
>genera.  But a descriptive text and an illustration for each genus ought to
>be do-able!  The families (and associated genera) could be "parceled" out
>and everyone doing the research and writing could be given a format, a
>glossary of terms to use, and a sample or two.    The really tough part
>(other than the unbelievable coordination required) would be locating the
>original type description for each genus.  Without that you would be sure to
>miss some key distinguishing features.
>
>I personally built something similar on my computer for my own use.  It is
>limited to the family level but contains a description and an image of each
>family I have (well, not each as it is still in progress and I haven't even
>touched the bivalves yet -- but I have most of the familiar gastropods
>done).  I have the image, followed by the description, and then a list of
>known species.  I built it like a web page with links to various pages and
>eventually hoped to have an available image for many of the species.
>Because it is on my hard drive and not for distribution (it is very, very
>large - memory wise), I stole shell images shamelessly from the web.  I now
>have to go back and replace all that I can with images from my own
>collection so I don't need to worry about copyright hassles.
>
>So there you have it.  A little more fuel for your unattainable fantasy.
>
>Tom Eichhorst in New Mexico, USA
>
>
>> I started this thing---so I get to comment from time to time.
>>         What I am thinking about is being able to distinguish shells down
>to
>> the Sub-generic level. (How to tell a Plotzconus from an Umlautconus)
>> NOT how to distinguish at the species level. You individual experts can
>> do that. I'm thinking about a book that shows the distinguisments AND
>> illustrates them---where to look on the shell. What numbers are we
>> talking about? What numbers are we talking about if we limit it to
>> univalves?
>>         Q-Man
>>