


yew YORK SHELL CLUB NOTES No. 251 April 1979 Page 5 
SOME THOUGHTS ON TAXONOMY 
The recent article by Bob Janowsky ("Discord in Paradise," NOTES 
No. 248) points up an unfortunate recent trend in systematics. The 
proliferation of unresearched and often invalid "new" species has 
begun to reach alarming proportions. Of course, most such names 
will eventually be disposed of by qualified researchers, and will 
end by cluttering up the synonymies of future monographs, utilizing 
paper and ink that could be put to better use, and reflecting no 
credit on their authors. 
In the same recent period a number of cases of rather drastic "lump- 
ing" have appeared in print. Perhaps all are justified, but one 
wonders how "minor genetic strains," "minor gene pools," “isolated 
populations” and the like differ from subspecies, and where the line 
is to be drawn. 
In this author's opinion, such controversy over species validity is 
less disturbing than the continual erection of new genera. To a 
reasonable extent, of course, such action is justified. The genera 
of Linnaeus often incorporated not only numerous present-day genera, 
but also numbers of different families! Nevertheless, the contin- 
ved subdividing of genera can lead to a situation in which relation- 
ships are to some extent obscured, and the tax on the memory of all 
but the specialist becomes unreasonable. 
The genesis of such situations, while certainly not uniform may 
often proceed in this fashion: the specialist researching a particu- 
lar genus finds that species tend to "croup" themselves into clus- 
ters of apparently closely related species. (If he is an evolution- 
ist, he will infer related lines of descent from a common ancestor.) 
Some formal recognition of such profound insight is required. (Some 
older authors resolved this situation by setting up “group of spe- 
cies a." "group of species b," and so on. 
Now, a perfectly acceptable solution seems to exist in the subgenus, 
and the division into a series of subgenera would seem to provide 
an ideal solution. The specialist has his subgenera, the generalist 
May continue to use the genus, and the erudition of the researcher 
is adequately documented. 
Unfortunately , this situation, if existing, is seldom allowed to 
remain. The next author will pounce upon the subgenera and raise 
them to full generic status (ready to be further dismembered by the 
next researcher to come along). It has been said that the generic 
"splitters" will be satisfied only when all genera are monotypic, 
i.e., consisting of but a single species! 
There are e sons why new genera are 
eis scene nave tareived an undue preoccupation with gas, BoF5 
Dhologic character, such as the operculum; others seem to have. beeu 
based on parochial or patriotic sentiments, and some, 1 mgee eg: 
confessed, have little apparent justification by any Boers one S a ba 
Standards. In the latter category would fall genera eh ae 
differences in shell morphology which are of specific value, : 
It is argued that large genera are unwieldy, and al paring ft, Maes 
cuse is sufficient to justify breaking them up. ( Se ues os 
€Xpected to neatly package species in genera of con ott pera 
ut then, genera are primarily subjective assemblages: 
proposed, some much less 
