It is with interest we followed the discussion about holotypes etc... We should stay realistic: there are not that many molluscan species described each year, surely not many without decent research, and very few forms are still described today. (Not enough in my personal opinion - but then if one describes a form, critics are that huge that most authors renounce - with all the problems staying "pending"). Also, I don't understand very well the problems around naming forms: or is it for other authors "too much work" to learn about all the forms in a given species ? It's not because the ICZN does not recognize them they don't exist. They exist and should be documented, either with or without names. Almost all types end up in good or bad institutions. The same institutions are in the majority of the cases not able to handle the material decently: after 20 years of internet, only a fraction of the holotypes can be found there. This is ridiculous but a reality. Reasons are multiple: not enough funding, reluctant to "work", keeping the types as an attraction to get visitors - if they are public, who is going to visit the museum ? And many other reasons. About peer review: experts on the contents of articles are a problem: in 90 % of the cases there are no experts able to judge another ones work on its content and if they are, on the same popular group, human feelings are playing such a role that subjectivity makes objective expertise impossible in the major part of the cases. Literature in some groups, such as Cypraeidae, occasionally looks like a battlefield ! In general I think things are positive today: most of the molluscan species described in recent times are valid, published either in public or private papers, with or without peer review, and the large majority of the types goes to the institutions they should go to. Instead of discussing the 5 % of things going wrong, people should spend their time in describing the many thousands of undescribed species, or studying what we don't know of all the described species. This is a vast job. More good news: the ICZN is working very hard to solve all the problems around publishing. The major problem is that after 5 years, a large percentage of original descriptions can no longer be traced back. So, the ICZN is thinking about an online database obligatory for all new descriptions, so nothing is getting lost. But this database goes in pair with much secondary effects: how are journals going to survive if all information can be found on the web. What about the "peer reviews" ? Etc... etc... also, is the scientific community going to follow these decisions ? I think there is no problem for malacologists/conchologists, but in some groups, such as insects, researchers are more individualistic, and they may not like the idea and "in mass" not follow the upcoming regulations. Guido, just back from a lot of traveling, members of Conch-L waiting for answers on emails will get them this week ! Sorry for the delays. Mabuhay from Mactan island, the Philippines. Guido T. Poppe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------