dear all,

yes, I have often wondered about that myself.

Personally, I don't like it that so many species get named after people. It
isn't always the correct people they are named after, either, after all,
who 'owns' a discovery anyway? The diver who collected the shell (but could
care less about the funny bivalve so gave it away, and is now angry about
it being named after someone else), the owner of the boat (who has known
about this species for years and knew where to find them all along), the
keen volunteer at the museum who first brought it to the attention of the
scientific staff (but would have liked to have described it himself had he
felt more confident) or the scientist (who described it ten years later and
dear oh dear, he named it after his wife, who threatened to walk out on him
unless he took her on a proper holiday)? Often specimens change hands
several times and the person describing the shell does not always know who
has been behind the discovery.

And yes, I also think it is an easy way out for some people who find it
difficult to familiarise themselves enough with latinised terms to come up
with original names to properly reflect the appearance of the specimen. I
agree that when describing 100 new Rissoid species it becomes a little hard
to remain original and you may be tempted to start naming them after your
friends, but at least, give it a try. The names are supposed to be informative

Patty


Dr. Patty Jansen

Bookshop: http://www.booksofnature.com
Publishing and info site: http://www.capricornica.com

Books of Nature
P.O. Box 345
Lindfield NSW 2070
Australia

phone/fax: 02 9415 8098 international: +61 2 9415 8098

E-mail: [log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]