antennae vs antennas

[Shueyi at aol.com]

Well, I have to weigh in at some point on this issue.  So forgive me my
sarcasm.

Imagine, if you will the following scenario. A buterfly watcher, hooked on
NABA, gets really excited about about lepidoptera biology and wants to learn
more.  They hear about about a local entomological (or should I say "bug")
group or "club" where there is going to be a meeting with some very
interesting presentations.  The get to the meeting and start using terms like
"pupas",  "tounges", "antennas" and so on.  They get a few looks becuase the
other "amatuers" don't understand  what they're talking about, or more likely
because its just so darn cute, those terms they use.  They listen to
presentations about pheromones in arctiids (butt perfume in tiger moths?),
sibling species in _Celastrina_ (a bunch of Azures that you have to kill to
accurately identify), or evolution of hostplant assimilation in the _Papilio
Glaucus/canadensis complex (I have a hard time devaluing this to the 2 cent
level) .  Anyway, one way or another the newly enthused butterfly stuidier (a
2 cent word for lepidopterist) goes away humiliated and very self conscious,
never to mingle with others with similar interests again.  (by the way, all
these topics and more have been keynote presentations at the Ohio
Lepidopterists meetings- which is about as close to a butterfly and moth club
as you can get).   

Anyway, a motivated but self conscious recruit is lost, all because (s)he was
not presented with whole picture and was educated and treated as a child (by
her initial mentor - be it a magazine or a person).  I've seen it happen - and
there isn't much you can do about it.  People making their first "public
foray" tend to be self conscious.  Their interests are creeping into the
fringes of science and they are a little nervous. They get to a meeting and,
get this, there are "scientific terms" being used.  They skulk away confused
because they only had access to grade-school terminology.

For the record, amateurs by and large do not run around using inaccurate terms
to discuss their passion.  The two regional "clubs" in my area - the Kentucky
Lepidopterists and the Ohio Lepidopterists are comprised of memberships
ranging from the fairly uneducated the highly over educated - yet they all
speak a common language when it comes to leps (oops - a shortened 50 cent
syllable referring to the Lepidoptera).  Almost all of them use Latin names at
these meetings.  Much of the discussion about genitalia doesn't revolve around
"pulling tails" but the configuration of cornuti, bursa copulatrix and so on.
Given that the existing "expert amateur" community uses (and indeed must use)
the precise language of the science to communicate their points to each other
- I can't foresee a trend of dumbing down at this level to accommodate the
newly converted masses. If we do, we're pretty much limited to discussing such
topic as "guess what species I saw today" - yup, it had its tounge stuck in a
geranium (it's ok to use Latin names for flowers, 'cause its easy to learn
them-there names).

Thus I'll wrap up my little diatribe with my usual phrase - "my point, and I
do have one"!

Teaching "dumb science" to beginners can and does backfire.  While it may help
draw them in initially, it may actually inhibit their intellectual growth.
They find that while they were moving around freely in the world of common
names and humanized-anatomy, that they are totally unprepared for the jump to
the next level - the level that actually includes all the interesting natural
history stuff.  While indeed, most of these newly found butterfly watchers
will never make the jump from developing "life lists", to rearing all the
_Incisalia_ in their region, it seems like an unethical disservice to them to
treat them like grade schoolers (or worse) and not prepare them to move on to
the next level.  

Especially when I think back to myself, fifth grade, and Klot's field guide -
I read the darn thing front two back at least twice, learned Latin names, and
even a little insect morphology.  I can and will speak for the mentally less-
endowed masses, and its not that hard!
 
Contrast my view with that that follows - the public deserves their full
"dollar's worth".
 Why settle for a "50 cent" term when clearly even the analogy indicates that
it is not worth as much?

John Shuey

In a message dated 10/20/98 5:15:30 PM Central Daylight Time, jmason at ink.org
writes:

<< 
 For purposes of working with the public, however, jargon is something that
 should be avoided when possible unless you are willing to throw in some
 extra sentences along with the term in order to define it EVERY time you use
 it.  If a 50 cent alternative exists, it is counterproductive to use the 5
 dollar term instead.  That, I believe, was the point Jeff was trying to make
 in his editorial, which was NOT posted on Leps-L (as far as I know) but
 rather in "American Butterflies".  NABA is mainly concerned with
 popularizing butterflying, rather than with advancing the science of
 Entomology, and unnecessary jargon just gets in the way of that.  For the
 NABA audience, that column was right on the money.
 
 In addition, the 50 cent term often has a whimsical property that makes it
 more memorable to an outsider and I think this principle can be well
 illustrated by the following:  How many use the term "pulling tails" as
 opposed to "dissecting the genitalia"?  The first time I heard the former
 used in context I knew immediately what it meant and have retained that
 knowledge ever since.
  >>