Folks,

I describe the odd species now and again, and I don't find it frustrating or an affront to my honor if someone describes something I was 'working on' before me, as long as they do it well - with a detailed description, multiple type specimens (and at least the holotype lodged in a proper public collection, not some 'institute' that is in fact someone's back room), and - most importantly - published in a peer-reviewed journal that will make it into the Zoological Record, so others can quickly see what's been done.
I once helped someone prepare a really nice description of a new cone. They had waited to get enough specimens together for a good type series, and had then taken the time to write it up well and have good plates made. They submitted the paper to a popular but reasonably well-regarded journal that put it out for review before accepting it. Then someone else described it, based on a single specimen, in their own 'journal' that appeared just weeks before the other one. The first person felt put off by this from ever taking the time to do it the right way again.

PC.

Paul Callomon
Collections Manager
Malacology, Invertebrate Paleontology and General Invertebrates
Department of Malacology
Academy of Natural Sciences
1900 Parkway, Philadelphia PA 19103-1195, USA
Tel 215-405-5096
Fax 215-299-1170
Secretary, American Malacological Society
On the web at www.malacological.org

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