>I think it is sad, rather than amusing that these name changes occur. The
>international Code of Zoological Nomenclature is all about stability in
>existing names. There are lots of (new) rules aimed at preserving species
>names but sadly, the unnecessary and often quite confusing upgrading of
>subgenus level taxa is not covered. And this is especially bothersome when
>done with well known species.
>For instance, there are fooks out there that want to replace Strombus gigas
>L. by Tricornis gigas (L.)! Not so useful for all those people interested in
>the queen conch as an endangered species, a food source, a source for
>cameos, an artifact in archeological sites, an object on stamps and coins,
>etc., etc. The great majority of people dealing with this species do not
>care how close or distant it is from Strombus pugilis (I bet most collectors
>keep them in the same drawers too) thus why bother them all with this
>nitpicking?

Taxonomy is all about putting names to organisms which reflect ther
accurate relationshiups. It absolutely rightly has nothing to do with
endangeredness, amateurs' ideas of esthetics or the convenience of
collectors. Therefore when new information comes along which
indicates that an older name is the correct one to use, or that a
species actually belongs elsewhere than its present placement, we
must go along... IF the move is objective (and it sure ain't
necessarily so).

Strombus as used by Abbott was a dumping-ground. S. gigas most
certainly is not congeneric with
S. urceus, and I fully support Gijs Kronenberg in his elevation of
what were traditionally regarded as subgenera to generic level.
However some genera are being split too far, and I don't consider
this to be objective.
--
Andrew Grebneff
165 Evans St, Dunedin 9001, New Zealand
<[log in to unmask]>
Seashell, Macintosh, VW/Toyota van nut