Conchologia Ingrata.Qxp
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
c o n c h o lo g i a i n g r ata http://conchologia.com Number eight 21 March 2012 A review of Rare and Unusual Shells of Southern Florida (Mainland, Florida Keys, Dry Tortugas) by Edward J. Petuch and Dennis M. Sargent. Richard E. Petit 806 Saint Charles Road, North Myrtle Beach, SC 29582 [email protected] It is difficult to know where, or how, to begin it is realized that “First Edition 2011” applies to a this review. A work by the same authors with a previously published work, there is still the state- similar title, Rare and unusual shells of the ment “First Edition: Publication Date, January Florida Keys and adjacent areas, was the subject 2011.” The authors certainly knew this to be of a recent review (Petit 2011). For reasons that incorrect as the CD issued for the First Edition will become obvious, that work will be refer- was dated 9 June 2011 and the print version was enced as “Edition No.1” or “1st Edition” and the not published until 9 July 2011 (Petit 2011: 1). It work now under review as “Edition No. 2” or will be difficult to ascribe this error to the pub- “2nd Edition.” The title page of this latest work lisher, as the second author, Dennis M. Sargent, has no mention of it being an “edition.” The is identified in the colophon on page 2 as the verso of the title page, however, after repeating publisher under the name Conch Republic Books. the title and authors names, has “First edition More serious is the lack of a publication date 2011” in a place and form indicating that this in this 2nd Edition. Not only is there nowhere in work is the First Edition and was published in the volume an exact date of publication, there is 2011. There is no mention of the name of the not even any statement of the year of publication. prior work. At the bottom of the same page, The new taxa on Figures 6.13 and 6.14 are listed “First Edition: Publication Date, January 2011.” as of “Petuch and Sargent, 2012,” the first indica- is printed on a line between the ISBN number tion that this work was published in 2012. How and the name of the printer. These statements of will The Zoological Record and other data bases dates are, to say the least, misleading. If one does know what date to ascribe to these new taxa? not have any knowledge of the previous work, Such organizations cannot be expected to go this date would be taken to apply to the work in through the work page-by-page. This omission of which it is printed as no publication date appears a publication date is grossly irresponsible. For anywhere in this latest iteration. It is not until the the record, this 2nd Edition was first made avail- third paragraph of the Introduction on page 6 that able on 9 February 2012. the phrase “this second edition” appears, but again prior knowledge is necessary to interpret There is no logical reason for these printed this remark as the name of the “first edition” is dates. The “First Edition 2011” under the title not mentioned. makes it appear that the authors considered this to be a new book, especially as it has a new title. As dating of taxonomic works is of great However, as already mentioned, in the text, in importance, especially for those containing several places, this new work is referred to as the descriptions of new species, the dating of the “second edition.” The statement near the bottom works under discussion must be addressed. After of the colophon page, “First Edition: Publication Published by Prelum Contra Mundum PO Box 30, North Myrtle Beach, SC 29597, USA conchologia ingrata ❄ No. 8 Date, January 2011” makes sense only if this new This lack of care taken in the composition, work was not meant to be a “second edition” and showing considerable disregard for those who use “January 2011” is an error for “January 2012.” it, is manifest in many ways. On page 175 the This possibility is negated by the use of “first edi- authors of a subspecies named in the 1st Edition tion” by the authors in referencing the 2011 book. are rendered as “Petuch and sergeant [sic; capital- Physically, this 2nd Edition consists of 189 ization and spelling as printed].” Correcting page pages (the number of the inside of the back proofs is a concept evidently not yet adopted by cover), 22 more than in the 1st Edition for rea- this new publishing company or the authors. sons to be shown. Unlike the hardbound 1st The work is divided into numbered Chapters, Edition, this new incarnation is softbound (perfect with the Figure numbers bearing corresponding bound) in a flexible printed cover. While the numbers. These sectional and other headings are cover is sturdy, the binding is not and pages italicised herein for clarity. become completely loose after only minimal use. The first part of the 2nd Edition is a copy of The paper of the 2nd Edition is of good quality the 1st Edition with only a few changes. Errors but is slightly yellow in comparison with the bril- that were pointed out by Petit (2011) remain liant white used for the 1st Edition. This is espe- unchanged in the 2nd Edition. Even such errors cially noticeable when the plate legends of the as a figure being Melongena bicolor on one plate two works are placed side-by-side. and repeated on a different plate as M. bicolor The price of the 2nd Edition, $39.95, is print- form estephomenos, with different dimensions, ed on the back cover. The imprinted price on the have not been corrected. The different dimensions 1st Edition is $79.95 but it is now being dis- for a figure of Calliostoma adelae were also left counted by its publisher and is listed at $30. unchanged as was the typographical error in the The type font used for the 2nd edition is larg- plate legend of Figure 2.7 which is headed er that that of the 1st Edition which should make “FiFigure 2.7.” Typographical errors were not it easier on the eyes, especially for older users. listed in the review of the 1st Edition and few However, the typography, which should have will be mentioned herein. been done electronically, would not be acceptable The Introduction is the same except that the by most authors. Although most of the text is new species listed for some localities in the 1st exactly the same as in the 1st Edition, it would Edition have been deleted and the sections seem that it would be printed from the same word reworded to accommodate the new species and processed manuscript. If so, in the process some- subspecies of this new Edition. Also added is a thing went awry. Latin names that should be in comment about “this second edition.” Not men- italics, and were in italics in the 1st Edition, have tioned is the fact that a new genus is introduced been printed in normal type. This happened to all in this new Edition. names on pages 46, 47, 63, 64, 112 and 113 and On page 109 the unfamiliar name Atlanticonus to some names on pages 91, 92, 109 and 181. The granulatus (Linnaeus) is encountered with a ref- last four lines on page 111 are entirely in italics. erence to Figure 5.17. However, readers are left There are places (e.g., pages 47, 64) where a sec- in the dark about the genus Atlanticonus until its tion heading that should be in bold face type, description is found on page 178. Checking the with spacing before and after, is in normal type Index for this genus is fruitless. The reader might with no spacing between it and the preceding and be lucky enough to note that there is an following paragraphs. The Index (pages 183–187) Americonus granulatus but that listing just refers is not right-justified, but it was also irregular in back to Figure 5.17. It must be assumed that the the 1st Edition. authors changed the name of their new genus midstream. The unfortunate result is that Conus Page 2 conchologia ingrata ❄ No. 8 specialists will now have another nomen nudum, publication is made unnecessarily difficult by the Americonus Petuch and Sargent, 2012, with fact that there are three “Petuch and Sargent, which to contend along with the nude species- 2011” works listed in the Bibliography without group names of the 1st Edition. Americonus differentiation. appears nowhere else in the book. On page 78, under the heading for the List of In the List of Florida Keys Endemic Florida Keys Reef Tract Gastropods, a source for Gastropods on page 23 the “new species” tag has the list has been added as: “Data taken from per- been removed from Scaphella junonia elizabethae sonal observations and from Abbott (1974).” Two which was described in the 1st Edition and errors that appear in Abbott’s work have been Gradiconus tortuganus Petuch and Sargent, perpetuated: the misspelling of Cyphoma mcgintyi 2011b, belatedly determined to be a synonym of as Cyphoma macgintyi and the misdating of Gradiconus anabathrum tranthami (Petuch, Dolicholatirus cayohuesonicus (Sowerby, 1879) 1995) has been removed. Added to the list are as 1878. There are several additions to this list in Nassarius websteri Petuch and Sargent, 2011 [sic; the 2nd Edition, not counting the appearance of = 2012] and Bulla striata frankovichi Petuch and Tripterotyphis triangularis (A.