NEW YORK SHELL CLUB _ NOTES 
Page 6 September 1977 No. 234 
not have. That is it can, if it is convinced ise, AS ee 
good of the whole body of ee ag iamdaes toe 
some scholar has convinced it oes name to stand even though 
uspend the rules to allow ; 
trent is an earlier, less well known name available. It can also 
i enera) for other 
t names (Notice: only names, not species or 
zenecee I cece one such case in an article in a ipa 
September 1969. It involves some names submitted by one Dy one i 
for some small beach fleas from oil gaa papal igh pe rae (eer 
wanted to name a new species of beac ea, : 
the genus Gammarus. So he had Gammarus. But this species of Gamma- 
he Latin word meaning spines and made up 
rus had spines, so he took the oe ee 
Echinogammarus, or spiny beach fleas. 
Ww on name arth ihn, SPs ih whom he wanted to honor, so he added 
that name to his -echinogammarus and came up with SIEMKIEWITSCHIECHI- 
NOGAMMARUS. He also came up with other names like Cancel loidokyt ~ 
dermogammarus with the subgenus Loveninuskikytodermogammarus etc. 
Now only a nut would stick with names like these, So some people 
from the United States National Museum raised official objection to 
the ICZN and the names, thank heavens, were set aside and Dybowski 
had to make up new, more mouthable names. 
I have succeeded in saying only very little about the whole problem 
of nomenclature. But I've bored you enough. Thank you. 
REVIEW: MUREX SHELLS OF THE WORLD 
by G. E. Radwin and A. D'Attilio. Stanford University Press, 1976 
(NOTE: This review differs in several respects from one run earlier. 
The work is such an important one for many Shellers that opinions 
about it deserve the widest range of comments. --Ed. 
This is an impressive book, handsomely printed and bound, with nu- 
merous illustrations in color and black and white. The obvious 
amount of research, time and effort expended in its preparation is 
also very impressive. It is, nevertheless, in certain respects, a 
most disturbing book. 
Before proceeding, the reviewer hastens to admit that the considera- 
tion of a taxon as large and complex as the Muricidae, even as lim- 
ited by the authors, involves dozens of subjective decisions, par- 
ticularly with regard to the validity of various genera, the assign- 
ment of species to such genera and the omnipresent controversy 
regarding "splitting" and "lumping" at the species level. 
At the outset, the authors state Clearly (pages 1 and 2) that the 
have decided to favor "splitting" at the generic level bel "lumping" 
at the specific level, They further state that they consider sub- 
These decisions must be continually kept i i i = 
atienathasnack. y pt in mind in using or evalu 
Within this framework, many of the subsequent descripti - 
onymies make considerable sense, and rosiuet: in Gaur baaet or occ 
Siderable insight into differences and Similarities. For example 
the association of Murex lividus Carpenter 1857 and M. tricoronis’ 
Berry 1960 with M. elenensis Dall 1909, rather than with M. recur- 
virostris Broderip 35, seems sensible. (Whether they are conspe- 

