Editor's Parting Thoughts: Why You Should Prioritize Publishing in the American Malacological Bulletin

Known to students of our profession and concisely summarized most recently in Ponder and Lindberg (2008), Mollusca are, with an estimated 200,000 living species, one of the largest animal phyla, second only to the arthropods. The remarkably rich fossil record of molluscs throws light back into the earliest Cambrian revolution 543 million years ago, and ever since then we fi nd them in nearly every ecosystem on Earth. The classes of living and fossil molluscs comprise an array of diverse animals with the most varied body plans, ranging from minute worm-like animals dwelling between sand grains on the beach to giant squids in the deep sea, and from microscopic snails in leaf-litter to giant clams in coral reefs. As objects of fascination, function, and food, molluscs play important roles in many cultures and societies. They include many taxa of immense economic signifi cance, such as oysters, scallops, and squids; some bivalves produce precious pearls, and some snails carry diseases that infect millions of people, especially in the tropics. Yet we feel that it is not only a curious fact in the history of science, but, unfortunately enough, much more a symptomatic indication of our discipline that it was not a professional naturalist or scientist with an interest in malacology, but the poet Edgar Allen Poe (1809-1849), who formulated an idea with much future. Poe was among the fi rst to recognize and explicitly recommend that the study of molluscs requires a combined analysis, which in his times meant reconciling a classifi cation based on hard shells with evidence from soft body anatomy (see details on this in the opening remarks to the symposium by Glaubrecht (2009)). This synthetic idea was long ignored by conchologists, who continued to classify molluscs almost exclusively based on features of their shell, while neglecting the soft body and the biological information that it holds. As a consequence, for a long time we knew few hard facts, for example, about the evolution and phylogeny of these soft-bodied animals but instead had much speculation by self-proclaimed authorities in the fi eld. In addition, most contributions in malacology long centered around morphology, anatomy, and in particular phylogenetic relationships within and among constituent taxa. Only rarely have molluscs been utilized explicitly as models for the study of the general aspects of evolutionary biology. However, molluscs, with their many features and facets, are highly suitable for providing some fundamental insights into the mechanisms of the genesis of biodiversity, its pattern in historical biogeography, and the underlying processes of speciation and radiation. An increasing number of recent studies and publications on molluscs reveal this rich potential. Therefore, it was the aim of this symposium on molluscs as models in evolutionary biology, held during the World Congress of Malacology (WCM) in Antwerp from the 15th to 20th July 2007 (jointly organized by Unitas Malacologia and the American Malacological Society), to bring together experts and their expertise to provide—based on molluscs— some of those fundamental studies, and to show avenues for using data that are of relevance for evolutionary biology. With 43 talks over more than two full days of sessions (plus several posters), this symposium was the largest at the Antwerp WCM. Following the introduction, two invited keynotes or plenary lectures were given, one by Suzanne Williams and David Reid (on global pattern of diversity and speciation) and one by Thomas Wilke and Christian Albrecht (on genesis of biodiversity, focusing on ancient lakes). Other lectures covered a wide array of topics ranging from biogeography, shell morphology and evolution, molecular phylogenetics, radiations and extinctions as documented in the fossil record, to mitogenomics, and aspects of development and reproduction. From all these presentations, a selection of eleven contributions were made, and we invited the authors to work out their main subject as exemplars for their specifi c area of research, viewed from their individual perspective. Subsequently, eight of the original speakers have been able to provide manuscripts for the American Malacological Bulletin.

The American Malacological Union (now Society), founded in 1931 as a national organization of collectors, students, professionals, and others interested in the holistic study of molluscs, is now an international society mainly of professionals. Although diminished in size, it continues to attract and fund students, publish a respected peer-reviewed journal, and host annual meetings featuring world-class symposia. In recognition of the society's 75th annual meeting in 2009, I provide a detailed account of the founding, meetings, membership, publications, governance, and societal identity of AMS, gleaned from meeting programs, newsletters, scrapbooks, correspondence, and the memories of Past Presidents and other members.

* From the Symposium “Bivalvia of the Americas” presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the American Malacological Society, in conjunction with the Society of Malacology of Mexico, the Latinoamerican Society of Malacology, and the Western Society of Malacologists on June 24–25, 2014 in Mexico City, Mexico. Symposium manuscripts were reviewed and accepted by the Symposium Co-Organizer and Guest Editor, Dr. Diego Zelaya. In June 2014 the fi rst joint meeting of four malacological societies was held at the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico in Mexico City. Named Mollusca 2014, The Meeting of the Americas, it joined together members of the American Malacological Society, the Western Society of Malacologists, the Asociacion Latinoamericana de Malacologia, and the Sociedad de Malacologia de Mexico. In total there were over 330 oral and poster presentations, given by nearly 300 contributors. Participants traveled from almost all countries in North and South America, as well as Europe, Africa, and Asia. The goal of the Mollusca 2014 symposium Bivalvia of the Americas was to bring together disparate bivalve researchers and students and facilitate collaborative projects in the future. In addition, we hoped to access the current state of bivalve research in our hemisphere and highlight strengths or weaknesses in our collective knowledge of this fascinating group of mollusks. Twenty-seven oral presentations were given in Bivalvia of the Americas, along with 13 posters. With over 35 participants in the symposium our initial goal was accomplished. Attendees were rewarded with discussions on marine and freshwater bivalve ecology, biogeography, reproductive biology, conservation, systematics, phylogeny, parasitology, and aquaculture. Equally important was the broad swath of countries represented in the symposium including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, the United States, and Uruguay. Many bivalve researchers met for the fi rst time during the meeting and symposium, and undoubtedly new collaborations were initiated. Of the many excellent presentations during the symposium we invited a number of researchers to submit manuscripts for the proceedings, to be published in the American Malacological Bulletin. Geographically we have included manuscripts covering marine bivalves from the United States, Mexico, Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay, along with one paper discussing development of a “cosmopolitan” bivalve. These fi ve manuscripts highlight the diverse interests in bivalve research in the Americas, but also humble us by our rudimentary knowledge of even the most common species and large geographic regions in the Americas.

This paper documents the publications of the American Malacological Society, and its predecessor, the American Malacological Union, from 1931 through 2007. Information on the dates of publication is included, based primarily on library receipt records. Several publications were erroneously dated as to year, which has resulted in new taxa described in those publications, as well as abstracts and articles, being attributed to the wrong year.

The symposium formed part of the 78 Annual Meeting of the American Malacological Society in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, and was held on 19 and 20 June 2012. While everyone talks about biodiversity we asked the basic question: What do we know about molluscan diversity? Or even more simply: How many species of molluscs exist today? A simple question to ask but diffi cult to answer. Of course, this question is not a new one, but ever rising threats to our environment and thus, habitats of molluscs render it more urgent than ever to know what lives on our earth and what will we lose. Land and freshwater molluscs are among the most endangered groups worldwide (Lydeard et al. 2004, Regnier et al. 2009). More recent comprehensive estimates of molluscan diversity suggest the number of described species at 31,000 non-marine and 52,500 marine, but the number of yet unknown diversity may be roughly one third to more than an equal amount (Lydeard et al. 2004, Bouchet 2006). The symposium title refl ects these two aspects while the “known” refers to described species rather than implies that their number is known considering the often unknown share of synonyms among available names. The goal of the symposium was to gather new data to narrow down a realistic estimate of the diversity of this second largest phylum in the animal kingdom and to reveal the progress made during the last few years. The 22 talks presented in Cherry Hill encompassed studies on special taxonomic groups, geographic areas as well as theoretical approaches like analyzing saturation curves, the portion of valid species versus synonyms, correlation to rarity, sampling methods, the amount of undescribed species in collections versus discovery by new fi eldwork, and last but not least elucidated the potential of new methods. The “unknown” stood for what remains to be discovered in terms of species not yet found in underexplored habitats and regions, species not yet recognized due to the lack of taxonomic expertise, revisionary works, and cryptic species. If the title was mirrored in two talks, Gary Rosenberg’s analyses of databases reducing the estimated diversity of described species to 70,000–76,000 represented the “known“ (this issue) while Philippe Bouchet certainly took the audience to the frontier of the “unknown“. Based on his tremendous exploration efforts in the tropical Indo-Pacifi c Bouchet assumed that only 30% of the molluscan diversity of this area is known. This already anticipates that despite some detailed approaches the latter aspect remains not only as undescribed diversity but still unknown in its extent. In terms of marine species, Rudiger Bieler questioned our knowledge of the molluscan fauna in the well known Florida Keys. Philippe Bouchet, as mentioned above, characterized the tropical Indo-Pacifi c as a treasure trove for new species and highlighted the phenomenon of a high percentage of species occurring in low abundances. Janet Voight evaluated the exploration of hydrothermal vent habitats (this issue). John Taylor, co-authored by Emily Glover, gave insight into the enormous diversifi cation of Lucinidae triggered by their obligate chemosymbiosis. Continuing with bivalves, Paul Valentich-Scott dug deep into the hyperdiverse group of Galeommatoidea which not only amaze us with their previously unexpected species diversity but even more by their range of unusual lifestyles. Patrick LaFollette described the attempt to catalogue the published taxa of the megadiverse family Pyramidellidae resulting in an estimated 10,000 names regardless of status. James McLean’s review of the Liotiidae and Areneidae more than doubles the known diversity and sampling still seems far from complete. Exposing the most cryptic groups, Timea Neusser and colleagues gave insights into the mesopsammic fauna and their underestimated diversity and ability to colonize unusual habitats (this issue, Jorger et al.). Moving from the least known to the best known, Fabio Moretzsohn reviewed the progress of cataloging the Cypraeidae (this issue). An equally attractive group but less popular among shell collectors, Terrence Gosliner described nudibranch exploration. Greatly supported by citizen scientists like scuba divers, Gosliner feels their role is not only in accelerating the discovery of new species but also in helping to monitor environmental changes. The contributions focusing on advances by the application of molecular techniques identifi ed signifi cant numbers of so-called cryptic species: Ellen Strong estimated the diversity of Cerithiidae two to three times higher than currently recognized. John Slapcinsky deduced equal ranges from his analyses of the land snail genera Tropidophora and Daedolochila (this issue, on Tropidophora). To the relief of less wellequipped biologists both pointed out that after recognizing the hidden species differentiating morphological characters Stuttgart State Museum of Natural History, Rosenstein 1, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany

The American Malacological Society Membership Application for Jan 1-Dec 31, 2021

Showcase Your Research in the American Malacological Bulletin

The American Malacological Union

This summer's meeting season saw five gatherings devoted specifically to the topic of extinction: Chicago's Field Museum symposium in May (see Diamond 1983); a field conference to examine the Cretaceous-Tertiary transition in Montana; a symposium on molluscan extinction at the American Malacological Union meeting in Seattle; a special session at the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Evolution in St. Louis; and a research conference on the campus of Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff (see also Lewin 1983a,b,c). Several recent books consider the topic (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981; Nitecki 1981; Silver and Schultz 1982; Martin and Klein, 1984) and plans are underway to publish the papers presented at the Field Museum, Seattle, and Flagstaff meetings. Our review of the topic is based principally on the themes explored at the St. Louis and Flagstaff meetings.

Introduction to the James H. Lee Symposium, “Great Unanswered Questions in Malacology,” 77th Annual Meeting of the American Malacological Society.

Showcase Your Research in the American Malacological Bulletin

Previous articleNext article FreeIsolation and Selection in the Evolution of Species. The Need of Clear DefinitionsJohn T. GulickJohn T. Gulick Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The American Naturalist Volume 42, Number 493Jan., 1908 Published for The American Society of Naturalists Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/278899 Views: 141Total views on this site Citations: 3Citations are reported from Crossref PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Warren D. Allmon, Erin Saupe Species, speciation and palaeontology up to the Modern Synthesis: persistent themes and unanswered questions, Palaeontology 56, no.66 (Jul 2013): 1199–1223.https://doi.org/10.1111/pala.12054Rebecca J. Rundell Snails on an Evolutionary Tree: Gulick, Speciation, and Isolation*, American Malacological Bulletin 29, no.1-21-2 (Mar 2011): 145–157.https://doi.org/10.4003/006.029.0208James Mallet Why was Darwin’s view of species rejected by twentieth century biologists?, Biology & Philosophy 25, no.44 (May 2010): 497–527.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-010-9213-7

Showcase Your Research in the American Malacological Bulletin

Mrs. Imogene C. Robertson's rambling notes on the second annual meeting of the American Malacological Union in Washington, D.C., May 26-28, 1932

Updated American Malacological Bulletin Publication Schedule, Publication Fees, and Institutional Subscription Fees