I would like to hear opinions on where conchology crosses over into the
realm of malacology.
 
Isn't a malacologist someone who studies "mollusca"?  By that, I mean shell
and animal, together as the unit they are.
 
I don't understand how one could be considered a malacologist, lettered or
not, if (s)he focused primarily on the shell and not the animal
characteristics.
 
How does access to preserved or fresh whole specimens play into the issue
of malacological expertise?
 
Curators, can you tell us how an intact, well-preserved specimen compares
in scientific value to an empty gem shell of the same species?  Which would
a museum value more, and why?  Which is of greater service to malacology?
 
I will cross-post to MOLLUSCA.
 
Jenny
 
 
Andrew wrote on CONCH-L:
 
> Well, the best malacologist is the one who has
> seen the most shells, whether by collecting, buying and trading, or
> examining them in a museum. A PhD who has specialized in scallops ought
to
> know his stuff, and probably has access to specialized literature and
> equipment that most people lack... but, then again, he hasn't seen every
> scallop, has he? And if you've carefully examined a lot of olives and he
> has not, then maybe your opinion on olives should be sought after. My
point
> is that you don't need a PhD to be an expert on shells.