I doubt that mollusc watching will catch on as a popular hobby. Some collectors (not many) do supplement their collection activities with photography of living animals; however, both birds and butterflies are a lot more "watchable" and a lot more photogenic than living molluscs, for a variety of reasons. First of all, they are much more active animals. Their graceful movements and (in the case of birds at least) wide range of activities are interesting in and of themselves. Snails and slugs are, well, sluggish. Record a bird's activities for an hour and you may have a couple of pages of notes. Watch a snail for an hour and you may see it crawl a few inches! Or not. Watch a Spondylus for an hour and . . well, you get the idea. Of course, Cephalopods might well be worth watching, but most folks are not in a position to directly observe them in their natural habitat. A second problem with mollusc watching is that humans are essentially terrestrial, as are birds and butterflies. Many molluscs are also terrestrial of course, but the majority are aquatic, and watching or photographing them means becoming similarly aquatic. This is not beyond the realm of possibility, thanks to Jacques Cousteau, but it is a bit more involved than taking a stroll in a meadow. Thirdly, the color and beauty of birds and butterflies are best observed in living specimens. A mounted butterfly or bird just doesn't compare visually to its living counterpart. Molluscs on the other hand are often downright ugly in their natural habitat, covered with algae, sediment, marine growths, and self-produced periostracum. Some do have colorful soft parts of course, but the fantastic colors and patterns that make shells so popular can, unfortunately, be appreciated only in dead specimens. Paul M.