Bravao, let's not proceed into the new millenium with the "glass half
empty"!  And I raise mine to your approach.  Skoal!  Karen
-----Original Message-----
From: David Kirsh <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, December 10, 1999 10:12 AM
Subject: Shell Empire of the Web


>Personally, I think that our online database pipedream would do best to
>start off easy. In other words, just as you suggested with photos and
>descriptions. Keys could come later. Deepwater and subspecies esoterica
>later. Or better yet, whenever those who are contributing are ready to
>contribute.
>I think the beauty of this is the collective effort of many, and the
>coordinating discipline of those who will be gatekeepers (perhaps one
>"shell czar" as Paul has suggested). Of course the site itself will be
>beautiful to behold too.
>I vote, let's try to keep it free! Grants can be found, volunteers will
>come forward. Czars can be kept happy with some Melongenas.
>--David
>Durham, NC
>
>
>>You may have noticed that the folks who have actually constructed keys to
>>identification are either telling you that the difficulties of the project
>>exceed its virtues, or are being very very quiet.
>>
>>There are good reasons for this.
>>
>>My feeling is that it would be easier, and probably more effective for
>>those wishing an aid to identification, to post photos and brief
>>descriptions of species on the Web than to attempt a key to the
>>Mollusca--the second largest phylum. Keys generally are most useful when
>>they have only a small number of steps, as in a key to the species of a
>>genus, or the genera of a family.
>>
>>Keys are especially difficult to construct for identifying the higher
taxa,
>>because taxa are defined wherever possible to reflect actual phylogenetic
>>relationships (genealogy), not current similarities in shell form. And the
>>more time animal lineages have to diverge, the more likely it is that the
>>overall group will not share any one shell feature. For instance, the
>>gastropods can be characterized as having a single, expanding helical
>>shell, but the exceptions to this "rule" are still obviously more like
>>other gastropods than like anything else. It is very hard to define
>>"mollusk" at all in morphologic terms that every mollusk must share. (DNA,
>>of course, is another matter.)
>>
>>A good key can be great for identifying good material. As a
paleontologist,
>>I find keys to be extraordinarily frustrating because I often deal with
>>fragments. There are good keys to local floras that accommodate this kind
>>of problem (keys using all features of a plant; keys to trees using only
>>leaves; keys to trees in winter), but it's not very practical to ask for
>>several sets of keys to animals that only a few people study at all (e.g.,
>>keys using only bivalve hinges; keys using only sculpture of shell
>>fragments; etc.). I find it more effective by far to use a
well-illustrated
>>guide to a local fauna, or a reference set of actual specimens, than to
use
>>a key.
>>
>>So keys are harder to write than you may think, and harder to use also.
>>Yes, I am one of the quiet ones who have actually tried to construct keys.
>>It's not easy.
>>
>>If people really want to make a contribution to identification on-line,
why
>>not set up a site for digital photos of well-identified shells? If space
is
>>a factor, the photos can be rotated occasionally, or the shells of one
>>region can be showcased and then another.
>>
>>Quietly,
>>
>>Andrew K. Rindsberg
>>Geological Survey of Alabama