>Hi All,
>
>I much prefer the phrase "rare in collections". I'm beginning to feel that
>"rare", is being highly over-used these days, and tend to ignore it to some
>extent, but especially when used as a selling or valuation point. Don't know
>if that's cynicism creeping up on me, or experience soaking in...
>
>Ken Zentzis
>Wichita, Kansas
 
Hello,
 
I agree with the above. In shells it is overused. Probably with time I made
many mistakes on this level also, but at the point where we are now here in
the office we tend to apply more and more:
 
VERY RARE : known by us (we cannot cover the planet) from less than 10
specimens.
RARE: less than a hundred in collections.
UNCOMMON: less than a thousand specimens in collections.
 
In fact, the above reflects the rarity of cabinets conctaining the species.
 
But there is another sort of rarity: World record sizes are unique, there
are only two albino fultoni known, and less than a hundred sinistral
Buccinum undatum. So, these are also RARE, or VERY RARE.
 
Of course, it is difficult to explain a C. broderipi is even not an
uncommon shell. But collectors in the long term will prefer a pure approach
of the problem and accept that there is no clear link between rare and
price, the latter having at least twenty different parameters in shells.
 
Interesting subject.
 
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