English Names

Chris J. Durden drdn at mail.utexas.edu
Tue Jun 8 12:57:44 EDT 1999


At 09:01  8/06/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Butter-folks,
>
>I get the feeling that we are acheiving something here.  Let's keep it
>going, and see what progress we can instigate.
>
>I write field guides, by the way, and I have already published three (Acorn,
>1993, Butterflies of Alberta; Baron and Acorn, 1997, Birds of Coastal
>British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest Coast; Fisher and Acorn, 1998,
>Birds of Alberta-- all Lone Pine Publshing).  Consequently, I am sensitive
>to the needs of a general naturalist audience, and since I am working on
>more books, I am continually reassessing my views.  One thing I keep coming
>back to is the impression that readers do not want the most rational or best
>justified set of English names, they want a standard set, and stability is
>seen as a primary role of taxonomy, at which the specialists are perceived
>to be failing.  And as Trevor Boyd points out, the broader the
>standardization in geographic terms, the more useful the names will be.
>
>So why do gardeners use Latin names so easily, as Doug Yanega asked?  Good
>question.  Tropical Fish Hobbyists are the same way.  Here's my guess-- the
>main obstacle to using scientific names seems to be uncertainty about
>pronunciation.  It is easy to find a garden centre, or a pet store, in which
>one learns pronunciation in a social context.  It is much harder to find a
>group of butterfly enthusiasts.  At least it is now.  Things are improving
>in this respect, and the number of naturalists with an interest in
>butterflies is growing rapidly.
>
>Mark Walker suggested that with respect to English names, "science doesn't
>place any demands nor bestow authorization concerning their use."  This has
>been the case historically with respect to butterflies, but it is not a
>basic tenet of science.  As has been mentioned, the American Ornithological
>Union has done exactly that for birds, and the Entomological Society of
>America has done it for selected (mostly pests) insects and related
>organisms.
>
>Cris Guppy's feelings about the North American Butterfly Association's list
>are, I think, shared by many lepidopterists:  "the NABA list is THEIR list,
>and it need not be paid attention to unless one chooses to acknowledge their
>self-proclaimed authority."  I agree with this, but only in part.  Yes, NABA
>has behaved poorly, and I have had a few run-ins with Jeff Glassberg myself,
>as evidenced by our exchange a few years back in the News of the
>Lepidopterists Society.  I complained to the directors of NABA about his
>editorial practices, and eventually was told in a vague way that this
>problem was unavoidable since the position of president and editor in NABA
>is not an elected one, it is a self-appointed one (and please, if I got this
>wrong, someone correct me-- no one has explained the situation in so many
>words).  
>
>However, the fact remains that NABA is a growing organization filled with
>exactly the sorts of people that expert lepidopterists should be trying to
>help.  Reading the inside cover of the Journal of the Lepidopterists'
>Society, it is clear to me that the aim of this society is to promote the
>study of butterflies and moths by BOTH the professional and the amature.  It
>is therefore a failure of responsibility (in my personal opinion) to
>relegate the amatures (be they watchers or collectors) to the realm of a
>"them" group and still produce books and other publications, written by
>"us,"  that "they" will rely on for information and guidance.   Right now,
>NABA's list is the closest thing there is to a standardized list, and until
>that changes I plan to follow it, despite irritating behaviour on the part
>of that society (of which I am, yes, a member).
>
>Chris Durden has suggested that "we need an open forum for a standardization
>of vulgar names."  This reminded me of the way the Dragonfly Society of the
>Americas created their set of official English names:  they sent all the
>nominated names out to all their members for a vote, and then accepted the
>winning names in an entirely democratic fashion.  Now it seems to me that in
>the realm of butterflies, "science" is represented by the Lepidopterists'
>Society.  If anyone on the LS excecutive is reading this, perhaps they could
>explain why the society has not taken a leadership role in standardizing
>butterfly names in North America.  If the society chooses not to do this,
>could they perhaps turn the task over to the ESA, and appeal to them to
>provide the sort of authority that true standardization requires?  NABA
>doesn't have the neccessary clout to pull it off, and my question is simply,
>who does and why don't they do it?
>
>Finally, I think we should all be clear on the use of terms.  We seem to use
>"scientific name" and "latin name" interchangeably," which seems fine.  I
>think "English name" is better than "common name" since it refers to the
>language, not the frequency of use (and "vulgar name" means the same, but
>has unfortunate perjorative overtones).  "British" refers to the country, by
>the way, while "English" refers to the language.
>
>Looking forward to more discussion.
>
>John Acorn
>
  Good points. How about hosting a long-term poll here. Maybe ATL could
officiate? I too feel Lep.Soc. has let us down (I was a member from 1954
through about 1993) and I have found that NABA has been a bit too
authoritarian up to now.
..........Chris Durden


More information about the Leps-l mailing list