Standardized Butterfly Names

[Kenelm Philip]

	I agree with Michael Gochfeld that common names can be more stable
than scientific names. It is easy to attain stability when you consider
only _local_ species, and do not have to consider whether the taxon in
some other state or country might perchance be the same species. But that
fact is irrelevant to the function of scientific names--which is to serve
as indices to the available information (for _anyone_ in any country to
access).

	Because the scientific names change, you will need to know the
history of those changes, which is why museum libraries have catalogues
and checklists going back through time to Linnaeus. Yes, this makes work
for the poor entomologist--but you can hardly demand that taxonomists
cease and desist!

	I find it amusing that the major thrust in favor of the use of
common names _instead of_ (rather than in addition to) scientific names
comes from the UK and (now) the U.S. These are precisely the same countries
where the people in general get along by speaking their own language and
feel no need to learn foreign languages--in contrast to mainland Europe
where the knowledge of a foreign tongue or two is considered a very useful
accomplishment. This is understandable, but the result is parochialism--
which is not a scientifically useful trend.

							Ken Philip
fnkwp at aurora.alaska.edu