A false prophet can be recognized when he proclaims even one thing that is untrue. But a good scientist will admit to error when proven wrong. Even Tucker Abbott made mistakes. Of course, if someone's work is always full of mistakes, it's hard to call him an "expert," no matter how humble he is. Eventually people catch on and stop reading or citing books that are full of errors. Then again, we have names for people who take pleasure in finding fault with others: nitpickers, for instance, which is really ugly when you consider what nits are. And what about "going over the manuscript with a fine-toothed comb"? As to practicalities, it is usually not worth pointing out previous faults unless you are discussing the same topic in a later article, and the tone should be matter-of-fact: "Conrad Morton (1843) assigned Balzacia excessiva to the Calibanidae. Apparently he failed to notice the curled ctenolium that is present in his type specimen, and which makes it necessary to reassign the species to Monfilsoconcha, in family Scheuinidae." Not, shall we say, "Conrad Morton sure goofed! You'd think he'd have noticed an obvious feature like a curled ctenolium. Ah, he probably never even saw the type." But there is a fine old tradition of publishing lists of errors ("errata") found in major reference works, such as "American Seashells." We've done it on Conch-L. Lists of errata are highly valuable to correct typographical errors, slips of the pen, and the occasional goof. Lists of updated names are also useful, but please bear in mind that an item that needs updating is not the same as an error, since it was not wrong when it was published. In either case, the effort needed to correct and/or update a major work can be a heroic task in itself, and sometimes it is the first step toward a new, revised edition. In other words, a normal process in scientific publishing. Andrew K. Rindsberg Geological Survey of Alabama