Dear Guido,

How can you write this if you don't know what my objections to the Harpidae
issue are? I have no problem at all with the photographs, they look great.
And I am not expecting a deep-going review at all. But what I do expect
(and what you do pretend) is a work which unequivocally clearifies the
differences between species, as an aid for collectors. Some species of
Harpa are extremely difficult, and these differences are not clarified, in
the contrary.
On Harpa goodwini:
"H. goodwini is superficially similar to H. cabriti, H. major, and H.
kajiyamai but our pictures show that it differs in numerous subltle ways
from these species." Why not a few lines indicating what these "subtle"
differences are?
On Harpa doris:
".....and a form robusta, heavier and more angular....." The form robusta
is attributed to Röding, 1798. Rehder, in his monography never listed
robusta Rehder. He may have missed it, but I don't think so. Suppose he
missed it, then it would be very interesting to bring this as news, with
atl east a reference to Museum Boltenianum, or the paper in which this
discovery was first reported.
Furthermore, I think that the description of the new Morum species should
not have been published in this iconograph.
To me the Harpidae publication is nothing but showing off with an overkill
of (I admit: mostly beautiful) illustrations, at least as far as Harpa is
concerned.
I think two or three more pages with text, clearly explaining the
differences between species, would have made it good. Now, as far as Harpa
is considered, it adds nothing to the existing papers by Rehder; Berkhout;
and Frydman.

Gijs


----------
> Van: Guido Poppe <[log in to unmask]>
> Aan: [log in to unmask]
> Onderwerp: Harpidae - Strombidae
> Datum: vrijdag 3 september 1999 15:23
>
>  Besides, there is a new book on Strombidae in
> >preparation (at Conch Books, in the same new Iconographical series as
the
> >recent work on Harpidae). I do however hope that the one on Strombidae
is
> >better than the one on Harpidae.
> >
> >Gijs
> >
>
> Dear Gijs,
>
> if you expect a "deepgoing review" of the family Strombidae, then you
will
> think again it is not a good work.  We are realising an Iconography, not
a
> review of the family. And the Harpidae are good in that; at least better
> than anything done before on this matter. I do not remember having seen
> another work figuring over 400 specimens in detail and top quality. And
> also not another work easier for the determination of Harpidae. The
> Strombidae are the same: over 1200 specimens shown, classic approach of
> merely published but dispersed knowledge. The super overview of the
family
> with correct determinations. A revision of a family of more than 100
taxons
> cannot be done in 6 months, not in Harpidae, not in Strombidae, and not
in
> most families with more than 10 species. Making a useful tool and a
> splendid Iconography is in our reach; with lots of people and modern
> techniques and that's exactly what we are doing.
>
> Guido
>
> Visit Conchology, with over 50000 names with author, 3800 indicated type
> species, 5000 conchological images, and fun with shells.
> http://www.conchology.uunethost.be/
> For Information on A Conchological Iconography
> http://www.conchology.uunethost.be/go/iconography/index.html