>Date:    Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:08:22 -0400
>From:    David Campbell <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: DESCRIBING NEW SPECIES
>
>>What does it require to describe a new species?  Who decides if it is valid?
>>Is it possible for someone self-taught to get the job done?
>
>You then need to find a suitable place to publish it.  Getting the
>paper reviewed by competent authorities is advisable; formal scientific
>journals send submitted papers to reviewers, but if you are thinking about
>a shell club newsletter you should check if it is a suitable place for new
>species descriptions.

It might just be my opinion, but I don't think that a shell club newsletter
is ever an appropriate place to publish new species descriptions.  If other
disagree or there are valid reasons that I am overlooking I would like to
hear what they are.  As David has pointed out journals are peer reviewed,
which means that others working in the group of interest will (hopefully)
look over the work for completeness, etc.

You might want someone to unoffically review it if
>you are uncertain about whether to publish.  Publishing a new species on
>the Web is not yet allowed.

And hopefully never will be (personal ranting here, please don't shout at
me if you disagree, I'm a sensitive guy).

>Date:    Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:32:44 PDT
>From:    Ghost Sheller <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Describing a new species issue and juvenile examples.
>
>Please excuse me.
>
>I rarely post, but this issue sparked some interest.  Occasionally a
>researcher discovers a species which is so unique that it is obvious to him
>or her that it is new to science.  What is the minimum number of examples
>required to be considered?  I'm unable to find the answer in the ICZN.

If I am not mistaken, only one.  Others on the list may know the definitive
answer.

Kevin S. Cummings
Research Scientist
Illinois Natural History Survey
607 E. Peabody Drive
Champaign, IL 61820
[log in to unmask]
http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/cbd/collections/mollusk.html