By an order of magnitude, the users of taxonomy in identifying and
labeling molluscs are conchologists, but they have little input into the
work of taxonomy generators.
 
For this reason, when Scientists are reviewing a Family and moving
species to new locations based on other than conchological
characteristics, the selected Genera should be identifiable by
conchological characteristics to as high a degree as possible.  Where
species groups are separated into genera by radulae or biological
characters, the conchologist is not able to determine the genus, and
bases the genus ID only on morphological characteristics of the species.
 
I think conchologists should make their concerns known, and recommend
that subgenera be used to separate groups of species when the group is
determined only by radula/biological characteristics.
 
A case in mind is Cypraea.  The Schilders divided this genus into a
number of new genera based on the radula.  Species within the new genera
do not always form a logical grouping based on conchological characters
used by the great majority of people involved with molluscs.  All the
new genera share very basic morphological characteristics of shell
shape, base, aperture, etc.  When all are placed in the genus Cypraea,
most people know what they are, and will assign correct binomial names.
 The absence of a subgenus name would not invalidate their labels, and
inclusion of the subgenus name would not confuse either scientist or
conchologist, but would indicate a further subgrouping that
conchologists don't have the means to determine.  Both scientist and
conchologist should be satisfied.
 
Your speaking up on the topic would generate some direction to
scientists who are not aware of a conchologist's concerns.
--
                     Aloha from Wesley M. Thorsson
Editor of Internet Hawaiian Shell News, a monthly Internet Publication
           122 Waialeale St, Honolulu, HI  96825-2020,  U.S.A
       http://www.hits.net/~hsn                 [log in to unmask]