CONCH-L Archives

Conchologists List

CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Sender:
Conchologists of America List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
John Jacobs <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 13 Dec 1998 22:44:56 -0000
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Conchologists of America List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (69 lines)
Those who publish new species descriptions without taking the animal into
account (fossils excluded) are doing bad science.  There is no excuse for
not including a description of the animal when the shell is live collected.
I have seen, even in the pages of "Veliger" and "Nautilus", descriptions
which omitted any discussion of the soft parts.  While "complete"
descriptions of any given species may not be required under ICZN rules, that
omission should not be an excuse for not including ALL of the animal.  It is
very easy to describe a shell as new when the soft parts are ignored.  There
are those who continue to refer to minor conchological differences in order
to justify naming a "new" species.  My suggestion to those who are not
capable of describing the soft parts adequately is to find someone who is;
until then, hold off on the publication.  If the soft parts are not
available, then say so in the description.  But be absolutely sure of
yourself.
Unfortunately, there are some authors who like to name names, and the world
will probably continue to see new synonyms for already validly named
species.
 
John Jacobs, [log in to unmask]
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Froehlich <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, December 14, 1998 12:24 AM
Subject: Re: Introduce myself to all.
 
 
>Welcome Mr. Sanpanich!
>Cladistic analysis sounds very interesting.  My experience as an amatuer
has
>been that most taxonomy of shells is based on the physical characteristics
>of the shells.  There seems to be much work to be done to determine if the
>genetic characteristics of a particular shell species support it's
taxonomic
>placement based purely on physical characteristic of the shell.   Glad to
>have you on Conch-L and please keep us updated on what you are finding in
>your research.
>
>Beth
>[log in to unmask]
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kitithorn Sanpanich <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Saturday, December 12, 1998 5:19 AM
>Subject: [CONCH-L] Introduce myself to all.
>
>
>>Hello all CONCH-L members
>>
>>This is the second time that I join in this member again. I am Mr.
>>Kitithorn Sanpanich, I am working as a marine biologist at the Institute
>>of Marine Science, Burapha University, Chonburi, Thailand. My interest
>>field is on marine mollusc taxonomy both on bivalves and gastropods but
>>more emphasize on bivalves. Now I plan to study the use of cladistic
>>analysis on taxonomy in marine bivalves especially in Veneridae and
>>Pteriidae. So if there are somebody who interest in this topic or
>>expertize in using cladistic analysis on marine molluscs please contact
>>me, because I am newly on this field (cladistic analysis) I think it
>>would be my pleasure.
>>To anybody who interest in the taxonomy of marine bivalves in Thailand
>>(external part) can contact me, I think I will help you as much as I
>>could.
>>
>>Kitithorn Sanpanich
>>[log in to unmask]
>>
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2