Where are we going?

Preparing for the Annual Meeting in April, I asked a few members their views on the direction The Society should take in the future, prompting responses to perceived strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. A digest of their comments follows. A frequent response was "but I'm not typical" - clearly one of The Society's strengths is the range of individual interests among its members. So please let me or other members of Council know your views. Bill Bailey

"Molluscs are an ideal group in which to study evolutionary patterns and development: they are speciose, have a good fossil record, possess many characters which link fossil and extant groups, have good soft body characters, exploit a huge variety of ecological niches and therefore show lots of adaptations." Alex Ball
(a view also expressed by Richard Cook).

"Those members (the majority) who do not spent all their time studying molluscs enrich malacology by bringing in new concepts and ideas - and thus keep the discipline young. This range of experience also gives people a realistic perspective of the importance of molluscs in comparison with other fields of science." Bernhard Speiser.

"Students do not study for fun any more. They want jobs and Universities see their role as providing preparation for these careers. There are just not many jobs in molluscs, and the use made of molluscan exemplars must be decreasing as programmes become more anthropocentric. Molluscs are treated as potential threats or minority food items rather than as model systems worthy of study in their own right. The strange balance to this is the popularity of "natural history" programmes on the TV. There is thus intense popular interest in the natural world but that is not what researchers and teachers are being funded to do." Tony Cook.

"A strength of Malac. Soc. is that it has always been interested in all aspects of the animals, not just systematics and distribution, and the Journal reflects that balance. Member's voluntary activities involving malacological expertise are important." Robert Cameron.

"Two reasons for the slow decline in our membership are the generally poor teaching of invertebrate zoology at universities, and the trend away from taxon-based research. Perhaps we should consider ëpromoting malacologyí more directly for example by teaching courses, in addition to encouraging the few existing malacological students."
David Reid.

"A weakness is the lack of a field meeting programme with very little promotion of the concept of

getting together as a group to look for, and at, molluscs in their habitats. An opinion sometimes expressed at Malac. Soc. Council is that some people view Malac. Soc. as elitist." Jan Light
(the second point was also picked up by Richard Cook).

"Could The Society provide educational material for schools/colleges, especially relating to conservation and ecology? Is it time to change the name "Malacological Society of London" to reflect a modern society open to all?".

Richard Cook.

I thank everyone who has contributed articles, information and illustrations. Please send items for the next Bulletin (Number 35, August 2000) to reach me by mid-July. Please keep articles simple and short, so that malacologists outside your field can appreciate them. Where appropriate, include a reference to a more detailed account, and an illustration. Remember that the Web version can use colour illustrations. As well as articles, I rely on you for snippets of news, cartoons.

Dr S E R Bailey
School of Biological Sciences,
3.614 Stopford Building,
The University of Manchester,
Oxford Road,
Manchester M13 9PT, UK.

Tel: 0161 275 3861
Fax: 0161 275 3938
Email: BBAI...@FS1.SCG.MAN.AC.UK

Bill Bailey

TAXONOMIC / NOMENCLATURAL DISCLAIMER

This publication is not deemed to be valid for taxonomic/nomenclatural purposes [see Article 8b in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 3rd Edition (1985) edited by W. D. Ride et al.].