At 01:41 PM 1/20/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Y'all;-
>    We appear to have had a number of people complain lately that we
>are not discussing subjects they want to read about. Therefore, down
>goes the gauntlet.
>   How about suggesting topics that you WOULD like to see under
>discussion. No matter what you are interested in, someone knows more
>about it than I do. I'll start it out by suggesting a few things I'd
>like to know more about:
>   1. I'd like to more about Dr. Rowland Zeigler who gave us that
>wonderful Olive book. Did any of you know him?
>   2. I'd like to know the effect of river effluent on nearby marine
>environments. Do they bring more nutrient or more pollutant into
>marine systems? Are there "good" rivers and "bad" rivers? How far is
>their effct felt?
 
I CAN'T COMMENT ON THE FIRST TWO, BUT I'LL TAKE A STAB AT #3.  NO, IT
SHOULD NOT BE LISTED YET.  I WOULD TAKE THE WE HAVEN'T LOOKED HARD ENOUGH
YET STAND.  CONSERVATIONALISTS AND OTHER BIOLOGISTS DO NOT NEED THE BAD
PRESS CONCERNING THE LISTING OF A SPECIES THAT IS LATER FOUND TO BE
THRIVING.  SNAIL DARTER AND OTHERS NIGHTMARE.  A SPECIES SHOULD BE LISTED
ONLY AFTER THOROUGH SEARCHES HAVE BEEN MADE BY COMPETENT FIELD BIOLOGISTS.
FOR INSTANCE, MANY LAND SNAILS ARE KNOWN ONLY FROM THE SMALL TYPE SERIES OR
A UNIQUE SPECIMEN.  MANY ARE FROM OUT OF THE WAY PLACES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN
ADEQUATELY SURVEYED.  SOME OF THESE MAY INDEED BE ENDANGERED, BUT UNTIL
SOMEONE LOOKS FOR THEM, WE CAN NOT SAY.
 
KURT
>   3. When we have a shell that is known from only one or two
>specimens, should it go on the endangered species list? Or do we take
>the position that we just haven't looked hard enough.
>   That's a start. You can either add to this interest list or give
>us your own.
>            Art
>