Hello,
the remarks by MARCO OLIVERIO on considerations regarding the Rapaninae are
certainly interesting. But something helps it?
Only that can to be taken into consideration, which is published. I know
about works, which was planned long and never was finished or remained
unpublished, be it that the authors have lost the interest or have been
deflected by other ideas. On the publication of one ready work, which I
know, I'm waiting already for four years.
In the last years the professional discussion of taxonomic basis issues have
caused large modifications in the malacological systematics. In a work of R.
BIELER ("Gastropod Phylogeny and Systematics", Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics, 1992, 23: 311-338) one can look up which alterations until then
have happened. BIELER reminds also to A. NAEF (1911) which says: "As every
specialist of gastropod morphology will know, we are still far from having a
natural system of the gastropods, and extensive studies will be necessary to
develop one..." – K.C. EMBERTON & S. TILLIER ("Clarification and Evaluation
of Tillier's (1989) Stylommatophoran Monograph", Malacologia, 1995,
36(1-2):203-208, means: "Resolution of… [stylommatophoran]… higher phylogeny
remains a tremendous but hopefully not impossible challenge."
The changing arguments around precise aspects and the for and against the
validity and usefulness of come over and again formulated order-concepts
caused large uncertainty and embarrassment – at least with the collectors,
which for the structure of their collections and the daily practical
assignment superficially are depending on a consentable concept.
But we cannot lose the ground under the feet!
In principle, one can assume, that like with the Rapaninae also other groups
again and again stand or will stand for revisions to the disposition.
Collectors or institutes, which want or must want to arrange their
collections today and not in ten years are therefore not to be scolded if
they look around in the present literature for an up-to-date level. Several
helps are offered. The question is whether such helps are only compilations
without a critically concept or are true annotated classifications based on
the most recent taxonomic reviews published in the systematic literature.
With all is to bear in mind, that in the total-literature also still consist
big discrepancies and with the swift change in scientific opinions a final
agreement with the literature cannot be produced. In my book, I have pointed
out it in the foreword.
It is simply so, that also aimed statements in the scientific discussion
always at first must be judged as suggestions, especially then, if they
still not have found wide acceptance among the other authors.
The treatment of the Tridacnidae in my book may be regarded as an example: I
know, J.A. SCHNEIDER (1992) proposes in a cladistic analysis of the
cardiid-tridacnid Bivalvia, ("Preliminary cladistic analysis of the bivalve
family Cardiidae", American Malacological Bulletin, 9:145-155) the
adjustment of the Tridacnidae as subfamily to the Cardiidae. Now however it
is in this work about a cladistic laying down, that as such always also is
incriminated hypothetically (look at: U. WIRTH,"Die Phylogenetische
Systematik [Das Prinzip von Hennig]", Mitteilungen der Deutschen
Malakozoologischen Gesellschaft, 1984, 3: 6-35). Remarkable is also, that
the systematically sounded work by BEESLEY et al. ("Mollusca - The Southern
Synthesis“, Fauna of Australia, 1998, Vol. 5) records the superfamily
Tridacnoidea and doesn't assign the Tridacnidae to the Cardiidae, although
there is reminded on the work of SCHNEIDER.
I have talked with several colleagues. G. KRONENBERG ("Spirula",
Correspondentieblad van de Nederlandse Malacologische Vereniging) says to
it: "That of the Tridacnidae is only something that is being in the
discussion as I know generally. There is not yet agreement and there will
maybe also be never."
Finally remain the question whether also a detailed reference-list is
meaningful in such a book for this immense number at families and genera.
The informations contained in the text-part were taken very many and very
different sources, that are only badly accessible for the reader which of
the contact with scientific texts is ignorant. Also language-barriers must
become heed. Therefore it is not exceptional that also others for such a
reader-circle writing authors give up extensive reference-lists.
The example Tridacnidae also shows, one had to would name in a reasonable
reference-list also the skipped works, what on the other hand would do
necessary reasons in the main-texts, - an expansion, that leads out far over
the as regards content goal of the book and for lack of space would not be
to handle.

Sorry my bad English,
Gert

[log in to unmask]