I think the term "best sheller" is in itself a bit wide in its
interpetration as can be seen by the various replies to Conch-L, but
there must be one gentleman who must surely rate in this catagory.
 
Hugh Cuming (1791-1865) was a successful sail-maker who having done well
financially purchased and outfitted a large boat and set sail on several
expeditions firstly around Polynesia, the next around the W coast of
America (1828-30) and the Philippines 1836-40.
 
These journeys earned him the title Prince of Shell collectors (see
Dance, Peter A History of Shell Collecting 1966-1986).
 
Cumings huge collections were distributed and donated to the many
leading malacologists/conchologists and institutions of the times for
naming and their collections.
 
Everyone of your collections would have many of the Cuming species, and
all his work was done, not for money but for the love of natural
history, lets take our hats of to old Hugh.
 
Kev Lamprell
 
Paul Monfils wrote:
>
> I am not going to suggest a candidate for this dubious "honor".
> However, Linnaeus would NOT be the first name to come to my mind.  He
> was the "father of taxonomy" and for that, malacologists are indebted
> to him; but they have no more claim on him than mammalogists,
> ornithologists, herpetologists, ichthyologists, and innumerable other
> "ists", not the least of which is botanists.  I'm sure Linnaeus didn't
> consider himself a "sheller".  He certainly couldn't be called a
> malacologist, since he didn't recognize mollusks as a distinct
> entity.  He divided the animal kingdom into seven major categories
> (the actual concept of "phylum" came about later) - mammals, birds,
> reptiles, amphibians, fishes, insects, and worms.  The mollusks,
> along with most other invertebrates, he classified as "worms".  His
> objective was to name and classify all objects of nature - mineral,
> plant, and animal.  He did this not to provide a foundation for other
> sciences, nor to compile a body of information, but for the process
> itself - he enjoyed classifying things.  He was a great naturalist,
> but there is no indication that he had any special affinity for what
> we know as the mollusks.  They were just one of the many elements
> which his ambitious project required him to deal with.  Given the
> many prominent individuals who have devoted their entire professional
> lives to the study of mollusks, I'd have to say Linnaeus would be a
> poor choice for "best sheller".
> Paul M.