At 09:00 AM 9/30/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Ross Mayhew asks how someone determines that specimens belong to a new
>species, and then names them. That is a tall order. General works on
>taxonomy tend to skip over this part in favor of telling the details of how
>to name a species properly. But there is a good description of the "Shell
>Name Game" in Raup and Stanley's "Principles of Paleontology", first or
>second edition.
>
>In brief, the process of discovery goes something like this:
>
>1. Try to identify the specimens with your existing library and reference
>collection. Fail to find a valid name. Allow yourself a raised eyebrow.
>2. Gather ALL of the comparative literature and specimens that might be
>relevant and try to identify it again. Fail again. A small measure of
>excitement is permissible, even expected.
>3. Ask experts for advice. They fail. Get excited, but don't uncork the
>bottle until the reviewers approve the manuscript for publication.
Dear Andrew,

You wrote:

>About a third of all the taxa that have ever been named are invalid
>synonyms or homonyms. As shown in monographic revisions of genera and
>families, this ratio remains remarkably constant through the years despite
>changes in taxonomic philosophy,....

This is a very interesting topic. Where can I find more information about
this 1/3 proportion between junior/senior synonyms or homonyms?

__________________________________________________________________________
Jose H. Leal, Ph.D.
Director, The Bailey-Matthews Shell Museum
Editor-in-chief, THE NAUTILUS
[log in to unmask]
http://www.uwp.edu/academic/biology/bmsm/bm_shell.htm
3075 Sanibel-Captiva Road
Sanibel, FL 33957 USA
(941) 395-2233; fax (941) 395-6706