Antennae vs. antennas

[Kenelm Philip]

	(Those tired of this thread please delete right now...)

	I hate to see Phil Schappert apologizing for coining the term
'dumbing down' when I used it before he did in this thread. I did put
it in quotes, however, to blunt the sting a bit. I also take full
responsibility for mentioning Glassberg's editorial on Leps-L even
though he himself did not post it here. I thought it was quite germane
to the thread on common names.

	It is my (possibly mistaken, since I am not a member of NABA)
impression that Glassberg does indeed have an agenda: an attempt to get
tens or hundreds of thousands of people interested in butterflies in order
to develop the political clout that would be required to protect butterfly
habitats. It is therefore understandable that he would object to anything
he perceives as putting up a barrier to such widespread public interest.

	Apparently some people interpreted my posting (and comments in a
similar vein by others) as an unprovoked personal attack on Glassberg.
That is a misinterpretation--I do not agree with everything Glassberg
says, but people can disagree with even their friends (and all the
interactions I have had with Jeff by letter, e-mail, and phone have been
friendly).

	I do see Glassberg's agenda (if that _is_ his agenda) as having one
possibly unintended consequence. The bird world now appears to be split
between birders and ornithologists (in part because one needs government
permits to do anything with birds beyond watching them, and in part because
you need to learn a _lot_ to do scientific research on birds). One of the
things that really impressed me about the Lepidopterists' Society when I
joined them years ago was that there was no gap between professionals and
amateurs--all participated on equal terms. And in entomology there is a
long tradition of major contributions to science having been made by
amateurs.

	What appears to be developing now is an incipient split between
'butterflyers', and lepidopterists. If the butterflyers (butterfly
watchers) proliferate to the point where they have real political clout,
there is a possibility that their (otherwise laudable) efforts to pro-
tect butterflies (by preserving habitat) may extend to attempts to ban
collecting by all except 'authorized' scientists, who would then need
permits to collect anywhere, as is now required for birds. This would have
a severe impact on the serious amateurs who are currently contributing
so much to research on butterflies (and moths). 

	So, I would like to keep the channels open between all the people
interested in butterflies--and also convince the butterfly-watchers that
there is a lot they can do to help the science, as long as they can still
communicate with the scientists (and also that there is no need for them
to want to make collecting more difficult than it is already!).

	I have given talks about Alaskan butterflies to 3rd-grade classes
in local schools, and also to the general public in Denali National Park.
Of course you gauge your language to the audience--but it's better to
pitch a it bit high than a bit low. People can tell when they're being
talked down to... I have found that, as long as your presentation is
perceived as being informal, you can get away with a fair number of
specialized terms.

	On the other hand (to play Devil's advocate for a second) I just
noted that Scoble (in 'The Lepidoptera: Form, Function and Diversity)
refers to a proboscis as a tongue enough times that there's an index
entry: "tongue _see_ proboscis".  :-)  These are really matters of taste...

							Ken Philip
fnkwp at uaf.edu