Jenny,
 
In answer to your question, in part...
 
> Isn't a malacologist someone who studies "mollusca"?  By that, I mean shell
> and animal, together as the unit they are.
 
I'm not a professional in that I don't work in a paid position specific to Malacology, so that makes me an
amateur.  However, I do specialize in Pectinidae, as does Carol Marshall, Bret Raines, and a half dozen other
serious students of the family. As for Bret and myself, many of the specimens we've examined included both the
shell and the soft parts, as well as habitat, ranges, association with other mollusks, etc. (I spent two years
diving and collecting in Okinawa, alone.) Waller has conbributed a great deal to our collective understanding of
Pectinidae, but on this one point, pallium vs speciosa, the majority seem to disagree with his findings and the
disagreement (at this point in time) is opinion based in fact.  If you saw the article Bret and I did on
Semipallium marybellae, you know we're thorough in our research before taking a position.  This particular
problem which Travis has raised is something we are still taking a very hard look at. Believe me, refuting
anything after it's been published, especially if it's from a highly reputable source, is more difficult than
any other aspect of 'hobby/avocation/profession'. If and when we publish a rebutle, it will be as scientifically
sound as the paper which prompted it.
 
As for whether or not I would be viewed as a malacologist, a conchologist, or an 'upstart crow', matters little.
I'd rather devote my time to working the problem rather than names of those who work on the problem.
 
Kim Hutsell