Dear Ross,
 
As I have to do more than debating about subfamily and subgenus, etc.
and as I have to take in the shell collection into the the computer for
data banks and to clasify shells, I've created for the shell collection of
the museum and for my private collection a databank only
with family, genus, species (eventually includes subspecies, if important -
for species and subspecies only one field - I'll tell you one sample:
so that the field species will be read maybe on the example of genus
Chilostoma:
cingulatum cingulatum
cingulatum baldense
cingulatum cingulinum and so on.
autor with date of the first description, put in parantheses or not (if I can
find out - it's more important than subfamily or subgenus or...)
landcode
province
locality with coordinates
habitat
leg
day
month
year
specimens
det
ex coll.
notes
 
This are the fields of my data-bank used for the museum, private collection
and collections for schools, we do revising or building up to make
malacology better known. We all do this as honorary collaborators, gratis
and never based for commercial purpose.
 
I will remain with my best regards to you
 
Helmut
 
 
 
----------
>
> For those who think that all taxonomists do all day is debate Genus
> placement of half the species in cetain families,  "it ain't
> nessessarily so"!!  The generic and sub-generic levels of taxonomy are
> possibly the most "artificial" of  the lot, and certainly the most
> "unstable"!  The subfamily Trophoninae and the Polinices/Lunatia crowd
> are two of the most problematic, for some reason (any theories??).  The
> most stable taxonomic level is probably that of Family- few species are
> kicked out of molluscan families into another one, but genera often play
> musical chairs till the cows are at home and long asleep!
>          The level of "Superfamily" is of major usefulness with mollusca also,
> although i do not know why, in  technical  terms- could someone perhaps
> shine some light on this subject?
>
>                                                                       
>                          -Ross M.
>
> PS: No reaction to my observations on endless quotes?
>