
NEW YORK SHELL CLUB NOTES No. 257 December 1979 rage 1 
The NEW YORK SHELL CLUB meets on the second Sund 
September through June, in on unday of each month, 
ROOM 426, AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY 
NEXT MEETING: SUNDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1979, at 2:00 pm 
PROGRAM: SOME CONES AND OTHER SHELLS THAT STUCK TO MY FINGERS 
by Nick Katsaras 
DISPLAY ¢ SPECIMENS FROM THE COLLECTION OF MARIE SUSSMAN 
RL A RN a ER 
CONTANTS 
Page 
NO 2 E7e4n The Editors 1 
On Field Observations by Amateur 
Collectors of Shells M. K. Jacobson 1 
Highlights of the October Meeting Milton Werner 2 
More on “A Collector of Miniatures" Harry G. Lee 2 
A Tiger in Your Tank - 
Placiphorella velata George A. Hanselman 3 
Other vhitons, Other Foods Dorothy Raeihle, 5 
Return of Clamming in Staten Staten Island ADVANCE 
Island Waters? & Mathilde Weingartner 6 
A Search for Amphidromus Renate Wittig Skinner 6 
N; (0-22 dy Go 
The editors of the NEW YORK SHELL CLUB NOTES apologize to Dr. R. 
Tucker Abbott for an unwarranted statement in last month's issue of 
the NOTES (No. 256.2) in a letter by Dr. Ronald Plotkin. As a 
trained biologist and a leading figure in the world of zoology, Dr. 
Abbott would never have "believed" that "all the Pacific species (!) 
were female and all the western Pacific specimens are male." We 
regret exceedingly that this absurd statement by Dr. Plotkin -- 
based upon a careless misreading of Dr. Abbott's published remarks -- 
was permitted to appear at all in these NOTES and, moreover, without 
a footnote containing a correction. We owe Dr. Abbott our most hum- 
ble apologies. 
The Editors 

ON FIELD OBSERVATIONS BY AMATEUR COLLECTORS OF SHELLS 
Amateur shell collectors have frequently made important contribu- 
tions to the progress of malacology. Indeed it may be said that 
without data provided by such amateurs, many areas of malacological 
knowledge would even now be incomplete and/or incorrect. 
However, if an amateur does make field observations which apparent- 
ly are in sharp contradiction to the published remarks by a profes- 
sional in the science, it appears to me to be the scientific -- and 
even moral -- duty, before he rushes his observations into print, 
to get in touch with the professional (provided, of course, he is 
still alive) to check with him on the newly discovered data. 
One of two things can then happen: the professional will acknowledge 
the addition to scientific knowledge and urge the amateur to Submit 
his data for publication, or he will point out where the amateur's 




