Some time ago there was an interesting discussion on locality data given
with shells.
Since I am extremely interested in receiving precise collecting data with
shells, I decided to start giving details on how many and how reliable
collecting data are present from the shells I offer when exchanging.
So I decided to grade them in my exchange list as follows:

GEM=precise data (locality and habitat) and very reliable (personally
collected or from source which can be trusted)
F+=as GEM, but may lack some details on habitat, very reliable
F=as F+, but source, despite deserves trust, has not been checked
Good=Usually only locality given, source reliabilty not checked
Poor=data may be limited to country of origin, if more information is
provided source is not supposed to be reliable

GEM does not mean I know water salinity and temperature, but that standard
habitat data are available such as depth, bottom, associations with any
other sea life if present.

Maybe it could be easier just to include all available collecting data in
the list, but it may become too long and it would take much more time to be
compiled.

What do you think?

Best regards,
Paolo

Paolo Giulio ALBANO
Bologna, ITALY
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Homepage: http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/pgalbano/index.htm