Jody Thompson wrote,
> Don't take this as any pressure to do something you don't want to do, but
this list could be focused and titled for New England and still have an
extended range. I understand that there has to be a line somewhere, but if
you have the data, maybe it could still be included.

> An example would be - Archer, A.F. 1948. The genus Stenotrema in the
Alabama region. His focus was Alabama but ranges extended out of Alabama,
and if I remember correctly (I don't have the paper in front of
me) there were species listed that did not occur in Alabama (Euchemotrema
hubrichti). Although Stenotrema is terrestrial, I'm sure many of you can
think of other papers like this one. Anyway, just something to think about.

It's legitimate to discuss all the species of a genus even when you're
focusing on its members in just one region, like Stenotrema in Alabama. This
places the work in a broader context. If one allows too much of this
material into the treatise, however, then it is time to change its title.

In a checklist or manual for a region, authors sometimes include a list of
shells whose overall distribution suggests that they will be found there
eventually. In this case, an uncommon species found in New Brunswick and New
Jersey, but not yet in similar environments in New England, would still be
worth mentioning in order to alert people to the possibility of finding it.

Keep up the good work.

Andrew K. Rindsberg
Geological Survey of Alabama

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.5 - Release Date: 2/3/2005

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------