Standardized Butterfly Names

[Wanda Dameron]

> Sounds like some select phrases were taken out of context, negatively, too harshly or perhaps personally!   That was NOT my intent.
> 
> As a "johnny-come-lately" and author of "Searching for Butterflies in
> Southern California" and a dozen personal "cut and paste" guidebooks,
> including 2 for portions of Mexico, I have the greatest respect for all
> the research and study the "old-timers" have accomplished and puzzles
> they continue to unravel, along with the great need for standardized
> scientific names. The scientific and common names, along with J.
> Miller's wonderful cross reference in "Common Names of North America,"
> helped solve a number of riddles.  I use both in my books, following the NABA procedure of when there isn't a common name, to form one by using the species name along with the common family name, i.e. Adelpha phylaca=Phylaca Sister.  This provides easy communication with the novice and collector alike on our butterfly trips.   

	Strongly agree that would love to see  a representative group of the
world lepodopterists set up standard scientific names and rather imagine
they will in time.   At the same  time, I'm rooting for popularizing
butterflies to promote the recognition of needing to conserve habitat.  
Common names can help tremendously in that educational process.  Writers
and the public alike  tend to really turn off with scientific names, but
articles on the El Segundo or Palos Verdes Blues help many understand
the problems and consolidate public opinion in helping to protect areas. 
> 
>         While a member of the Lep Society, mainly due to geography I am more active in the local NABA  chapter (butterflies thru binocular approach) and the Lorquin Society (mostly collectors).   Those of us with binoculars know how to ID  butterflies largely because of the collectors, but we're also learning some new  "field marks," often having to do with the soft parts that may change color or dehydrate and don't show up in a specimen.
> 
>         There is some cross-over of NABA & Lorquin members and of course, some humorous verbal jousting back and forth among the participants.   For the most  part, we recognize the attributes of both sides and usually work together on butterfly projects, counts, etc. quite well.  i.e. We're in  the process of putting together data on butterflies to be used  via the L.A. Co. Museum and in forthcoming publications.
> 
>         When using scientific names, greatly appreciate the utilization of the current one--not the one learned 30 or so years ago as a kid.  For
> whatever it's worth, in something written by either Pyle or Opler, it
> was noted that a Monarch has always been a Monarch, but has had over 70
> scientific names.......
> 
>         So, let's work together, leaning on whatever strengths are available to  accomplish mutual goals.  This, of course, is in addition to the fun and  mental stimulation of learning about butterflies!
> 
>                         Cheers,  Wanda Dameron
>                                  Flutterby Press
>                                  (So. Cal. Butterfly book, checklists,                                    etc. including name translations--
				   common & scientific--of various U.S. 				   butterfly books.)
> 
> 
> 
> Kenelm Philip wrote:
> >
> >         Wanda Dameron has created an interesting situation with regard to  any older lepidopterists who prefer to use scientific names--they are
> > apparently, as soon as they open their mouths on the subject, members
> > of a private little club of snobs. Was such an _ad hominem_ approach
> > really needed?
> >
> >         As one of those old-timers............I think I'll refrain
> > from bringing up the emotions or motives of 'Johnny-come-latelies', or
> > whatever the pejorative opposite of 'old-timers' is. It's really
> > easier to keep derogatory comments out of it...   >  but please do not denigrate> the people who are working with the Holarctic fauna and prefer to use > internationally-recognized scientific names. There's really nothing else they can do.
> >
> >         And I can't resist a few parting shots, as follows: Common names
> > are sometimes longer than scientific names. Gardeners talk about their
> > crysanthemums and rhododendrons, apparently ignorant of the fact that
> > these are scientific names. The real 'problem' with scientific names is
> > their unfamiliarity, not their length. But to someone starting out in
> > butterfly collecting or watching, almost all names are unfamiliar.
> > Whatever they do, they're going to have to learn a large number of
> > unfamiliar names. One set of those names lets them communicate with
> > anyone in the world, whatever languages they speak.
> >
> >         Use your common names to your heart's content--but if you care to
> > spend the time to learn the scientific names you will greatly enhance
> > your ability to find information about these creatures from all parts
> > of the world. And should you ever feel the need to consult one of the
> > major North American museum collections, you will find a surprising
> > absence of English names on the labels, at least until the present
> > old-fogy curators have been replaced by more politically correct (?)
> > younger people. End of sermon (from a snobbish old-timer).
> >
> >                                                         Ken Philip
> > fnkwp at aurora.alaska.edu