Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 1 Jun 1999 15:24:55 -0400 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
There was no review system back then. And ours is not fool proof. Some
people publish via unreviewed vehicles. Solem's Ba humbugi from Fiji was
described from a single specimen. It had to be done. Not only for the
name, but because the taxon represented a pretty important record of the
group for Fiji. Other's single specimen descriptions won't be so
trustworthy, but I go back to my original thought. Know thy creature and
all will come out alright. If one is not willing to do a huge amount of
homework, perhaps a professional lifetime, then it's best to stay out of
the game. These names do indeed hang around forever, even when sunk into
synonomy.
By the way, I can't remember if/when this has been discussed. What is the
most named organism???? I was told what it was and, lo and behold, it's a
mollusk....
Kurt
At 09:07 AM 5/31/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Dear All;-
> Aha!!
> But even if it is "zapped", a name remains in the literature for all
>time to re-found by some Phd candidate 200 years hence, and re-asserted
>as the true name for C. phonusbalonus Weil, 1999.
> Look at poor Roding. We went back and found his name (Epitonium) for
>wentletraps. It has stood up. But roding also described some 40 species
>of "Epitoniidae" and not a single one of them has stood up. Do we have a
>better review system today?
> QM
>
|
|
|