> Thanks for so well illustrating what can be the most difficult and time
> consuming part of documenting a species as "new".

Hopefully as more material becomes available online, the task will
become easier, but availability is currently patchy and there's
limited reason to believe Google's claims to have proofread things
before putting them online.

Unfortunately, even major review papers can get things wrong.
Sometimes the rules have changed, sometimes they missed a reference,
sometimes you just wonder when you locate the original reference.  For
example, Ortmann and Walker's 1922 paper on North American unionoid
genera corrected several eroneous usages in the literature of the day.
 They pointed out that Herrmannsen had designated types for some
genera earlier than the designations then in use.  However, they
missed other Herrmannsen type designations.  Of course, checking
subsequent type designation requires examining all the literature
older than the first designation you have found.

--
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------