6/2/2007 - Fabio Wiggers:

Yes, i did. I always spell it wrong. Sorry, i'll take extra care.

Regards, Fabio

Jun 1, 2007 - worldwide:

Type shells are typically more representational of a species rather than of superior quality.

6/1/2007 - Peggy Williams (author of Shallow Water Turridae of Florida and the Caribbean):

Ho, Ho. Have you looked at C B Adams' types? Most of them are so beachworn they are hardly recognizable (true also of some of Reeve's, not to mention Nowell-Usticke's!)

6/2/2007 - Art Weil:

O.K., Peggy:
Question: Can (or should) a beachworn "typeshell" be replaced by a better conditioned example? Purists will argue "NO!" But it might be worth talking about.

6/2/2007 - Charlie Sturm, Jr. (Research Associate - Section of Mollusks Carnegie Museum of Natural History Pittsburgh, PA, USA):

Art,

It is not open for argument or discussion. Once a holotype is selected, it is fixed. There is no provision to allow it to be changed (unless it is
lost)

6/3/2007 - Chris Takahashi:

Aloha,
And a holotype should possess qualities that best emplifies the characteristics that makes the species unique. Sometimes only a few specimens are available for study so a holotype may be a lesser quality
representative than expected.

6/3/2007 - Pete Krull:

I think anyone who is qualified should be able to name species and subspecies as well as forms. To assume that only "scientists" should be allowed to do this is no longer practical. First because scientists are just as likely to make mistakes as "enthusiasts". Look how many shells have been named more than once by scientists over the years. And look how many color forms have been given specific and subspecific standing by scientists. A knowledgeable collector or dealer who may or may not have access to all the scientific literature, may be more qualified to recognize a new species than a scientist who has access to the literature but little practical experience with the group of shells in question.

I specialize in colorful land shells and quite frankly the descriptions of new species and the literature written by scientists over the last 150 years, right up to today, is, in many cases just plain wrong. I would much rather see Richard Goldberg naming new Amphidromus than any scientist.

If a dealer or collector names a new species and someone, scientist or not, disagrees or has conflicting evidence, then put it in writing. Mistakes can always be fixed no matter who made them. And chances are that the new species is at least a new form.

6/3/2007 - Bob Lipe:

I'll have to agree with Pete Krull. I have named one shell and I don't have a degree and I am a dealer. It was of course a Marginella. I did let a couple of experts read it over before I summited it and they found nothing wrong. I've never sold a specimen of the shell that I named, but I could if I wanted to. I was a collector, expecially a Marginella collector long before I sold shells. The trip to West Africa in the 70s was responsible for me becoming a shell "proprietor". I hate the word "Dealer". Car dealer, drug dealer, etc. are looked upon distastefully. For some collectors, Shell dealers are not your favorite people either. Just remember most of us are shell lovers too. If we go to a thankless and most of the time unprofitable job of naming a shell after doing a lot of research we shouldn't be shot down. Thank you for listening.

June 3, 2007 - Charlie Sturm, Jr. (Research Associate - Section of Mollusks Carnegie Museum of Natural History Pittsburgh, PA, USA):

I don't think that only "scientists" are able to name shells, however, anyone professional, semi-professional, or amateur should exercise the same diligence in doing so. I would like to recommend a few books that may be useful to those interested in this topic.

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature was already mentioned.  The website for the e-version was mentioned in an earlier post. If folks missed it just search for ICZN and it should be the first or second hit. I personally like the print version. I find it easier to flip back and forth between different sections.  International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 4th. ed. International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature, London. xxix + 306 pp.

I would also mention that the Commission works with a shoestring budget.  All donations are appreciated. (note I have no connection to them). It might be nice if some clubs, individuals, COA would consider making a donation to furethering the cause of a stable nomenclatural system.

The next book is Judith E. Winston. 1999. Describing Species. Practical Taxonomic Procedure for Biologists. Columbia University Press, New York. xx + 518 pp.

Lastly, Daniel Geiger wrote a brief introduction to the ICZN, the idea of naming new species and genera, and the different categories of type specimens.

Geiger, D.L. 2006. Chapter 10. Taxonomy and Taxonomic Writings: A Primer.
In. C. F. Sturm, T. A. Pearce, and A. Valdes, The Mollusks: A Guide to Their Study, Collection, and Preservation. Universal Publishers, Inc., Boca Raton, FL. pp. 147-159.

June 4, 2007 - Barry Roth

I'll second the recommendation of "Describing Species" by Judith Winston, and not just because she used one of my land snail species descriptions as an example of how to do it. In fact I would place it above the International Code on the list of must-have books. Of course, one wants to be familiar with the rules and recommendations of the Code itself, but "Describing Species" really gives the nuts-and-bolts that a potential species author needs.

Another element, previously discussed on this List but not much mentioned in the current threads, is the need for peer review. All responsible scholarly journals submit submitted manuscripts to review by third parties, and the value of this process for uncovering overlooked problems or suggesting ways for improving a paper cannot be overstated. Objections to the process ("I [the submitting author] know more about this new species than anyone else, so how can a reviewer help me?" -- and so forth) are cop-outs; and an editor often needs external opinions to come to a decision to publish or not to publish a submitted paper.

Final observation: some posters write about "describing species and forms" as though that was the same process. Again -- the point made by so many before me: "forms," as infrasubspecific entities, are not covered by the rules of the ICZN and do not enter into formal zoological nomenclature. I suppose there really are no rules regarding naming "forms" -- caveat emptor.

June 4, 2007 - Pete Krull:

“Final observation: some posters write about "describing species and forms" as though that was the same process. Again -- the point made by so many before me: "forms," as infrasubspecific entities, are not covered by the rules of the ICZN and do not enter into formal zoological nomenclature. I suppose there really are no rules regarding naming "forms" -- caveat emptor”

My thought on this is that shells often described as new species or subspecies often turn out to be just forms of other species. The reverse of that could certainly be true as well, especially in the realm of land shells where even the genus is often changed when new research is done. Therefore I don’t think we can completely disassociate the naming of forms from the naming of species even though the ICZN does not recognize forms. Shouldn’t anyone naming a “form” be as diligent as someone naming a species just in case it’s later determined that the form is a separate species?

June 4, 2007 - Marcus Coltro (Brasil):

Indeed, I agree that it is not a problem of non-biologists describing new species, but the way they do it. If the research is made with the proper care and revised by someone who has the knowledge then I think it should be validated.

The major problem is when collectors decide to describe shells without doing the proper research, not even checking if a similar species was already described. Not mentioning some publications which don't require any revision from a serious staff of scientists. This way we have dozens of names for the same Cypraea for example, just because it has bumps on its side, different color or any minor
variations.

 

June 4, 2007 - Andre Poremski:

I am frustrated when a holotype is generally accepted by the shell community to be a juvenile specimen, or is very dead collected (especially when good, live-taken examples come from the same dredge as the faded, dead shell that was designated as the holotype). I wish there were some way to have a consensus-based evaluation of holotypes that, after acquiring more knowledge about the described species, could have other specimens selected from the type locality that could also serve as the current representation of that species. I do realize that in many cases this would be very problematic and not at all practical, however there are some instances where I think this makes sense. For example, Conus "abrolhosensis" is now commonly accepted to be a juvenile of the later named Conus bertarollae - I have been told that even the author accepts this. I use bertarollae because, although a junior synonym, the type is mature enough to easily guide identification of this conus population, where as abrolhosensis has not, to my knowledge, been formally revisited and compared with bertarollae in any publication.

Shorly after the above post Andre again posted: Sorry - didn't realize that my comment has already been discussed (still reading Conch-L posts from this weekend when I was out). Great thread.

 

6/4/2007 - John K. Tucker:

The three most important elements to describing a new species are: Peer review, peer review, and peer review.

Our problems come from three important sources: no peer review, no peer review, and no peer review.

By peer review I mean anonymous independent outside reviewers not some ginned up editorial board.

6/4/2007- Dr. David Campbell (University of Alabama):

As noted by Charlie and Paul, some species have extensive series of paratypes, and a few of those going into private collections does not seriously affect the scientific availability of type material. On the other hand, when only a handful of specimens exist, paratype material becomes more important. This is especially the case when the type is lost, as happens when holotypes are sold into private collections and misplaced, mislabeled, etc. or when earthquakes, bombs, poor funding, careless curation, postal error, etc. damage or lose institutional specimens. Of course, there's also the issue of ensuring that the paratypes are conspecific with the type.

6/4/2007 - Dr Stephanie A. Clark (Malacologist / Assistant Collections Manager Chicago Academy of Sciences):

Firstly some small corrections to some of the information about types. Only Holotype, Syntype, Lectotype and Neotype are considered primary or name being types. Paratype(s) and
paralectotype(s) are secondary types and as such are generally not considered quite as important as primary. I like Paul have no problem with people having paratypes in their collection especially if there are a bunch to go round.
Therefore, holotypes should not be kept in small private collections or bought and sold as such, their value in dollar terms is relatively trivial, however, they are irreplaceable and are basically forever. As Paul and Dick have pointed out previously what was done in the past is not always a good reason to continue to do things now or into the future.

Topotypes as has already been pointed out are specimens collected from the type location, these are usually collected after the species was originally named. However, these could also have been part of the original sample but were not before the person who named the species eg I might collect a sample of land snails say 100 specimens, I send twenty to Barry Roth, he determines they are a new species and the material I initially sent him is enough to describe the species he may even send me one of the paratypes, but the specimens that I didn't send him have no official standing as type specimens but they can be called topotypes.

John Abba made the following comment "Will eveybody that has these Holotypes in their private collection give them up?? It does come to a huge number of specimens. Probaly put it to the tens of thousands"

I am curious how does John know that there are "thousands" of holotypes in private hands? This suggests to me that he has the concept of what a holotype is mixed up a little. As far as I am aware there are relatively few holotypes of molluscs in private hands. On the other hand there is certainly a lot of material in private collections that could indeed represent new taxa and that there particular specimens could form part of the type series. The vast majority of existing holotypes are spread around the major and minor museums of the world.

I know that the following major museum
collections: Academy of Sciences, Philadelphia; The Australian Museum, Sydney; Natural History Museum, London; Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden; Museum für Naturkunde, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin; Musée National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris; United States National Museum, Smithsonian Institute, Washington DC.; Naturmuseum Senckenberg, Frankfurt among many others contain most of the worlds type specimens, with the ones named probably together holding about 75% of them. The largest collections are those held in London, Paris, Philadelphia and Washington.

6/4/2007 - Barry Roth:

Dear Pete,

Certainly, care and diligence are desirable in any study. My point was that, being outside the scope of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the activity of naming forms does not have a widely agreed-on set of standards to which it must adhere. Must a "form" have a holotype? Must the description of a "form" include language that distinguishes it from other "forms"?

If it happens that a "form" is later determined to be a separate species, at that point a new published description will be needed that conforms to the relevant parts of the Code concerning availability of names. (This is true for "form" names published after 1960. "Form" or "variety" names published prior to 1961 are grandfathered in as if they were subspecies, but they still must meet code criteria to be available.) I have some experience with this kind of sorting-out. See Coan, E.V. & B. Roth, 1987, The malacological taxa of Henry Hemphill. The Veliger 29(3): 322-339, in which we worked through the morass of names proposed as "vars." in Hemphill's early papers and sales catalogs.

I wonder if your example ("Shouldn’t anyone naming a 'form' be as diligent as someone naming a species just in case it’s later determined that the form is a separate species?") isn't almost self-canceling. If one has been diligent enough to determine that a configuration is a "form" -- an intra-population variant -- shouldn't that reduce the likelihood that some future worker will find out that it is a species or subspecies?

6/4/2007 - Art Weil:

A "Form" is the same as a species---except it has a pimple, a hangnail, or a runny nose. Now that's easy, isn't it!

6/4/2007 - Dr Stephanie A. Clark (Malacologist / Assistant Collections Manager Chicago Academy of Sciences):

Peggy made a statement that a lot of holotypes of CB. Adams are poor quality specimens. Well this is true of a lot of the types of old workers including C. Linnaeus, M.C.D. Lamarck, L. Reeve, A.A. Gould, T.A. Conrad, I. Lea, G.B. Sowerby's I, II & III, J.E. Gray, E.A.
Smith, H. Crosse, C. Hedley, T. Iredale, H. Suter, F.W. Hutton, A. & W.G. Binney, H.A. Pilsbry, G.W. Tryon, A. & H. Adams, R.A.
Philippi, L. Pfeiffer, W.H. Dall among many others.

Type specimens also get broken, scratched, faded etc depending on a great number of factors. Frequently the specimens the above authors had at hand were the only ones known at the time, or were the only specimens they or more often than not what friends, colleagues or people otherwise interested in nature might have picked up on their travels. When relying on other people to pick up things for you in far off lands can be very rewarding but often you only get a glimpse of what might be there. They may only have a brief period in between what there doing to pick something up, or it basically fell on them etc etc. For example one of the species of Tasmanian cave snail I coauthored, is apparently quite common in the cave where it lives ( I am yet to visit the cave) but the initial sample we received had 5 specimens because the person who picked them up thought that was more than enough but he later learnt was not, eventually we got more material which was used to formally name the species.

Colours can fade etc for example land snails in the genus Meridolum, frequently have purple coloured lips, unfortunately this fades to white over a period of time, regardless of whether the specimen is kept in the dark or not. Also depending on how the specimen may have been displayed over its life time is another consideration, especially if the specimens are heading towards 200+ years old. For example Helix jervisensis was named in 1832 by Quoy and Gaimard, but they collected the actual specimen in 1826 from Jervis Bay, New South Wales. They figured the specimen reasonably accurately except for the colour of the actual snail was a little off, 181 years later the shell is very faded and the bright red umbilical patch present in the original illustration and present day specimens is virtually absent.

Art asked why can't we replace the poor/broken/faded/eroded holotypes with a better specimen when it comes to hand. Well this simply is not allowed. Because the idea of the type is to have a single specimen that can represent the species concerned for time immemorial. If we just replaced that specimen with a better specimen at some future date we run the risk of another species being substituted, which could lead to all sorts of problems from all sorts of angles including taxonomic, conservation or legal issues. In addition it would create an entire other set of potential problems including what would be an acceptable number of times to replace such as specimen, do you replace when a nicer coloured specimen is found, or one with more or less ribs, smaller or larger than the original, is it acceptable to replace specimen if the new one is merely 0.1 mm larger. Do you replace the specimen in the collection where the original is or can you simply say I now have the "holotype" specimen because mind is better etc etc. So there is no way we want to go down that path.

Choosing holotypes is something that should not be done lightly, eg this specimen is the one that all future workers will use to make sure that their specimens are the same as or different to when identifying material if there is some problem. I have now chosen roughly 200 holotypes so far and I have always tired to pick a specimen that is typical of the material at hand, that is a nice specimen and has most of the characters that can best distinguish the species from other congers, it is virtually never the largest or the smallest specimen. Often holotypes do not have the animal tissue preserved, thus the specimen itself may not have all the characters that completely distinguish it for example characters of the reproductive system or the radula. For a couple of my new species of land snail from my PhD I know the anatomy, radula, allozyme and DNA data for that particular individual.

6/4/2007 - Brian L. Schnirel:

In regards to the post of those of limited resources and notable recognition trying to publish new scientific material:

In previous times, It was not necessary to be part of a privileged elite to publish new scientific discoveries. Indeed, if any question to the material presented was questionable, it would stand on it's own merit or fall in the course of time. Another simile would be our own government as originally intented. There was a center of town designated called the commons where one could express their views freely. Today, unless one is rich or famous, one is not heard. It was once said anyone could run for president. But unless one has proper noteriety or connections and has the vast financial resources available, it is a herculean task.

One of the saddest aspects of our scientific world, in addition to ego's, is blockage of scientific information to the general public. There are many private and organizational that believe knowledge should be readily accessible to all - not hidden and excluded to those charged hundreds of dollars for a La Ti Ta membership. Think of the potential talent and useful information lost due to exclusion to others who can build and expand the knowledge. It is similar to the loss of half the population (female) over the centuries due to supression (Examples, Hypatia, Virginia Galileo, Fanny Mendleson). Anyone who goes through the trouble, time, and expense of extensive research should be heard.

What is there to loose? What is there to gain?

/5/2007 - Guido T. Poppe:

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.

6/5/2007 - Andrew Grebneff:

> I've only one burning question, in which museum?
> Are all museum equal, I dont think so.
> Shouldn't there be some specific ruling appointing one or two specific
> museums in each country and not every single museum which pretends to
> have a malacological department.

Nobody can dictate what institution may keep types. How else do recognized institutions become recognized repositories? My university's Geology Dept is such a recognized repository.

> Concerning buying or keeping the holo-para and other types, I think
> it's rather a trivial discussion.
> I've been extensively collecting for over 40 years one particular
> family and only came across 2 or 3 of these shells.
> My guess is that over 99,99% of the holo and paratypes are being kept
> in "a" museum.

Loss of type-material is anything but trivial. These specimens are THE specimens which define the species, and need to be referred to by researchers. They are priceless to science. How can you refer to a specimen which is unavailable and the location of which is unknown? My own collection is known and available to numerous researchers, but I still do not attempt to be a "recognized repository of type-material" (much as I'd like to).

I forgot to mention... type-material should be housed in repositories which are SAFE. Repositories within potential reach of severe storms or flooding should be avoided, as stored material and labels are at severe risk. Sad to say, this includes the Sanibel museum...

6/5/2007 - Marien:

Andrew,

please condense your remark to the more sensible "type-material should be housed in repositories which are SAFE this includes the Sanibel museum"

Tue 6/5/2007 8:40 AM - Harry G. Lee:

Dear Andrew,

Yours is an important commentary as the Bailey-Matthews Shell Museum (BMSM) located on Sanibel Is., Florida is receiving type material at an ever-increasing rate.

I am happy to say that there is a provision in the Collections Chapter of the BMSM Long-term Strategic Plan for the removal of all type specimens to the relative safety of the mainland in the event of a significant hurricane warning.

I believe there has been at least one "fire drill" or actual temporary evacuation of this priceless resource. José Leal may have time to comment on this important program.

Tue 6/5/2007 10:55 AM - José H. Leal, Ph.D. (Director The Bailey-Matthews Shell Museum):

Andrew Grebneff raised the issue of lack of safety of Sanibel Island’s Bailey-Matthews Shell Museum due to enhanced probability of hurricanes and flooding on the coast of Southwest Florida. I have to agree that nature may be a little harsh on this part of the pond. However, we have worked hard for the past 12 years to mitigate the effects of possible catastrophes.

The Shell Museum was built in 1994-95. As such, it was one of the first commercial-grade structures built in this area complying with the new, very strict Florida building codes resulting from the havoc wreaked by Hurricane Andrew in 1992. The building is a fortress. For instance, it is one of the few constructions on the island that have ½ inch-thick, hurricane-proof windows that require no protection from metal shutters during a hurricane event.

The Shell Museum sailed through category-four Hurricane Charley unscathed. Our only material losses were due to lack of business after the disaster. As for the threat of floods, local regulations prevent occupation and use of the Museum’s ground floor for that reason. The first floor (exhibits, public areas) is 14 feet (4.27 m) above ground; the second floor (collections) sits at 24 feet (7.32 m) above ground. (The types are kept in a separate cabinet just outside my office.)

The Museum is very young. However, commitment from its board of trustees, the local community, and amateur and professional collaborators worldwide is at the core of the Museum’s success and professionalism. In the past few years, the Museum underwent two major assessments from official regulatory organisms in the US, one of them a Conservations Assessment Program managed by the federal Institute for Museum and Library Services that included extensive evaluations of collection practices and safety. Collection and types are handled according to the accepted standards for collection management worldwide. (Check http://shellmuseum.org/collection.html). In addition, we just applied to the exhaustive but potentially very beneficial) American Association of Museums’ Accreditation Program.

The Museum is largely a regional organization focused on Florida, Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean. Although we never actively request that types be sent to the Museum, we do maintain a type collection, which, as Harry Lee mentioned is quickly growing. I plan on publishing an annotated list of types in The Nautilus within the next 12 months.

Thanks for reading these factoids about the Museum. Some Conch-listers and many members of the professional and amateur shelling community have deposited (or are in the process of depositing) types at the Shell Museum and hope they will continue to do so. Is the Shell Museum Fort Knox? You bet it is not. But we are not alone as a Museum located in a disaster-sensitive area. If you are in the area, stop for a visit. And Good Shelling!

6/5/2007 - Carole Marshall:

Dear Jose,

That was very well said.

The one thing no-one remembers when extolling the danger from our hurricanes is that we have a LOT!!! of warning. Our TV and radio stations blare nothing but impending doom for at least two weeks before we have a blow. Plenty of time to go anywhere in the world and take anything with you that you want to take. There is no doubt that the types could go anywhere for safer keeping, although you sound like you've got it covered.

Congratulations on the accreditation. Many of us did not know that was in the works.

6/6/2007 - Dr. David Campbell (University of Alabama):

Cases where I am aware of major destruction to type collections in museums are the material that was in San Francisco before the quake and European museums (mostly German) that got bombed in WWII.
Hurricanes are much easier to predict than earthquakes or bombing raids.

In exceptional cases, it is possible to replace a type specimen, but only if the ICZN can be persuaded that it is necessary to avoid significant confusion. This usually happens only in the case of older material where a widely-known species has been interpreted based on an incorrect figure/description or when an early lectotype designation has been overlooked. I don't know for certain if it has happened yet, but I think there has been some effort to support replacement of a type if it is a widely-used name that can be shown to require additional material for definitive identification. For example, if a type was a shell but identical shells are known for species with major anatomical differences.

 

                                                                                                                                    END