Dear All , 
I reply at this email because Guido is absolutely right . 
To go in this way about the WRS data base for the 2014 edition , with the new nomenclature , we checked more than 18 000 references . 
Adeline & me started the 15 November 2013 & we finished the 15 February 2014  so 3 months .
WORMS is the most serious with of course some mistakes but they do the corrections after warning . 
We have to take care about Gastropods about the pictures . In a lot of cases 3 or 4 pictures are on line but no picture represents the right species .
For a small database that is already at work , but when you have monstrous data bases it is a titanic work.
Guido has such data base like Shells Passion , Gastropods & very few others .
In a second time we need also to go in the backups to do the corrections and for Shells Passion it is nearly 850 000 pictures to check . 
I'm not sure to finished before I die LOL . 
Good luck
All the best 
PHILIPPE 
Philippe Quiquandon

http://www.shellspassion.com
http://www.wrs-shells.com

Le 21 juil. 2014 à 18:04, Guido Poppe a écrit :
> Dear All,
> 
> 
> 	A very interesting topic indeed these Taxonomic changes. Best available is WORMS, it becomes better as time goes.
> 
> With our database of 600 000 shells shown, we have a major problem and it is impossible to keep updated while we have only like a day a week to work on that, between me and Sheila. 
> 
> Our own tools combine extensive databases, home made, based on Vaught, Shileyko, Bouchet & Rocroi, Bieler etc...with ingredients from Thiele, Wenz and the like.  When put all together, to give an idea: 25 % of the genera have changed name of genus or family out of a total of roughly 17500 (I don't have the exact number now, I'm not in the office). This is since 1976 - a period of a little more than a third of century.
> 
> No museum can keep the collections updated on this level, unless they get proper staff and materials. With a situation where they can neither buy the books or the shells, it's not looking better for the near future.
> 
> Worms is a little right: the Conidae are definitely not stable as yet. Much change to expect. For collectors, many keep registers by alphabet, so we made a button in the Encyclopedia where you look at the shells either by alphabet or by genus.
> 
> Emails for amelioration and pointing out mistakes we get regularly, at least one or two a week, they all are welcome and we update usually in a few days. Our members also get an update with the new taxonomy every year, so their collections have at least a pdf with the most modern - but far from perfect  - nomenclature. And this gets better as time goes.
> 
> One frustration we have is the lack of variants or forms - a feature science neglects for the moment. It is hard to talk about nature with a nomenclature without variant names for species such as for example Corculum cardissa. It's an empty name without variant names or color descriptions.
> 
> So far for tonight. The topic is quite endless and can fill an evening until the morning.
> 
> Wish all of you great conchological times, Guido.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> [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.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------