Hi Eduardo,

To further reopen a closed thread (I guess it isn't closed anymore!),
molluscan  taxonomy is in a constant state of flux. As was mentioned earlier,
as soon as something the scope of Millard's book is published, some of it may
already be out of date due to new insights and research. We must take all this
with a grain of salt or we'll be constantly changing things things back and
forth in our collections and catalogs in an effort to stay "current".
Disagreements over placement are par for the course. I know a few collectors
who are very much into "splitting", but have some trouble defending their
stance beyond the "new" taxa it puts into their collections. I tend to be on
the "lumping" side of things. Not that I don't appreciate the finer points of
taxonomy, but sometimes, enough is enough. We've been reading the excellent
info from Paul and Maurizio with regard to Olive shells...a "splitting
headache" indeed. I think Millard did the right thing with the higher levels.
Keep in mind that his book essentially contains Vaught's, in that it was used
as the basis for his work. Every worker and serious collector has their
preferences...some are unyielding to change, while others embrace it with open
arms. I fall in the middle. Guess I need convincing before accepting 30 genera
in place of one sometimes. I'm content to pretty much wait and see what the
coming years will bring in terms of more concrete evidence of the
inter-relationships of the Mollusca.

For me, cowries are Cypraea, and cone shells are Conus (subgenera in
parentheses, if you must...).

Ken Zentzis
Wichita, Kansas

Jose Eduardo de Alencar Moreira wrote:
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> Even entering a thread that is already closed, I'd like to add my two
> centavos.
>
> I ordered a Millard's book to Naturama and Riccardo kindly told me that it
> was available in the net. More than happy, I downloaded it and while talking
> about Millard's book with a friend, he said something like: "forget it, it's
> full of errors". I also talked with a couple of friends and they had the
> very same opinion.
>
> So, I'm still using the good ol' Vaughn book on taxonomy classification.
>
> I'd appreciate to receive the opinion of our taxonomy brains.
>
> All the best,
>
> Eduardo
> Brasilia, Brazil