To answer John's questions, I don't know exactly how we will do this.  I
thought I would use Word 97 (converted to html for a web page if we go
that route) instead of an actual database.  Excel would work but I don't
really see the need right now (limited foresight is such a blessing).  I
say include all corrections, including synonyms -- both as a corrected
name and a synonym, and as a listed synonym that has become a
species/subspecies.  The source for the correction will be listed but
more importantly each list will be "proofread" by at least five people
and disagreements noted (if they can't be corrected).  The number of
proofreaders will go up if at all possible -- it is just that I can
think of five folks right now who I think would respond if sent a
draft.  I would like to credit the proofreaders on the list; not because
they need recognition but because we need folks to know this isn't Tom
Eichhorst's list (good for insulation and fire starting).  The ultimate
goal is to have a readily available errata sheet for each major shell
publication.

Any input is appreciated, ideas welcomed, help accepted, and criticisms
at least read once before being deleted.  I see this effort as a natural
product of Conch-L (thanks COA!!).  When I signed onto Conch-l, I (like
many others, I'm sure) quickly realized how little I knew about shells.
At the same time I quickly found a bunch of folks on the list who really
know their stuff and are willing to share that expertise.  So lets use
these smart people (it's free) and see if everyone can't benefit.

Sorry, got a little preachy there for a moment, must be the coffee
kicking in.  So there you have it.  I will gladly accept any input in
any format and try to come up with readable lists.  Obviously the best
(easiest) format is one which lists page, paragraph, illustration
number, original text/caption, and corrected text/caption.  But there
are any number of variants.  We will see....

Tom Eichhorst
4528 Quartz Dr.
Rio Rancho, NM 87124-4908
USA


John Wolff wrote:
>
> OK, Tom. You're "it". What format (database) do you plan to use? And what
> info should be included? Like the source of the correction? Do we want to
> include "corrections" for synonyms?
>
> Is there an ultimate goal for putting this on the (COA) Web?