I guess I can be classified as one of the old timers, even though I'm not that old (relatively).  In close to thirty years of being an active conchologist and also dealer, I do remember the days when obtaining shells was to build an aesthetic and/or scientific collection.  Involvement in classification was left to the science community. That was then.  This is now.

Yes, there was and still is a shred of ego if someone has a species named for them, but I cannot remember one instance where the motive was "I must find a new species to make this worth my while."  We were out there because we loved the shells and want(ed) to build our collections.  If we had a species named for us in the process, all the better. The satisfaction came with helping the malacological community advance the science.

We all learned a lot back then about how and where to collect shells using new techniques and as travel to remote locations became easier, brought back a wealth of knowledge and material for the scientific community to chew on.

During the past two decades, a resurgence of conchologists (much like the Sowerby family did in the 19th century) turned their energies into malacological pursuits.  It became more common with new avenues of knowledge (the Internet), ease of access to new material (field collecting), the advent of vanity publishing on our desktops, and the greater willingness of the new generation of malacologists to work with conchologists. The latter point is very important.

All this has been a major positive for the hobby and science, until the perceived monetary pressures surfaced.  It has always been expensive to travel and collect shells.  Let's face it, natural history collecting hobbies involve spending money, whether you are an arm-chair collector, or trek to the farthest points on the globe to collect shells or rocks.  We all have our own little niche in this hobby.  With greater means sometimes come greater contributions. But are those contributions always needed or well researched?

And, do we need a name on every shell we acquire?  Probably not unless you are overly exacting in your cataloging methods.  If forced to make a choice, I'd rather have a shell with exacting locality and habitat data, rather than a verifiable name. The drawer of unidentifiable shells, for me, is more intriguing than the perfectly laid out drawer of shells.

Fortunately we can identify many more species than we have in the past due to the wealth of new taxonomic monographs and the ability to disseminate information quickly via the Internet.

As more is learned, more information flows to the public quickly.  The rapidity of this information has overshadowed a process, which is becoming a forgotten science. The motivation for placing a name on a shell should be scientifically driven with a series of processes that will lead to a more verifiable outcome. We are going down a controversial road if monetary motivation and the ability to publishing instantly is why we describe species.

There is and should be no instant gratification in research.  It has taken some of our most prestigious and knowledgeable conchologists years to become intimately familiar with the literature of their particular area of expertise (taxonomic or geographical).  It used to take years to get a new species described in a juried scientific publication.  The ability to self publish or distribute small runs of a publication has changed all of that.  Today many conchologists have never been privy to the extended process of research, collaboration and juried publications. I am not commenting on non-juried publications since many today are extremely well done and a positive addition to the science, but a quarter of a century ago few if any existed.  To get something published as new was difficult if not impossible for an amateur.

Also, it is not researching everything one can about a particular species they think is new. It is about learning everything that can be learned about the taxonomic group in which the species is taxonomically placed; the distribution and relationships between similar species; and a thorough search and understanding of the relevant literature.  That is where our most accomplished conchologists have distinguished themselves.  Collaboration is another important aspect.  Who else is researching a particular group; what have they learned.  The process is continuous and fluid.

Given the means, yes, all of this can come together quickly now days.  The commercial end should not motivate the science.  If it does, we leave our hobby open to extreme criticism from those in the scientific community whom we need to support us in our pseudo-scientific endeavors, and leave a taxonomic morass of for future generations to unravel.

Okay, so I still am an idealist!
Rich
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
www.worldwideconchology.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------