Names (and other subjects)

[K.J.Caley]

Anne Kilmer wrote:

> Two sets of names is what we'd like, I think, on this list ...
> scientific and common (needn't be English ... whatever language comes
> handy) and a light-hearted approach to life if possible.
> As Pogo said, "Don't take life so serious, son; it ain't nohow
> permanent."

Definitely agree with this on all fronts - it's still a stripy butterfly
whether you call it a zebra, a zebra butterfly or a zebra longwing (or a
Heliconius charitonius), and if it's not a horse...I think I'll quit while
I'm ahead.

> As for the matter of subspecies, what frosts my garters is our habit of
> running in circles waving banners to save some critter who can't be
> distinguished from its relations without dissection of its genitalia.

Must remember that phrase...... You often find that there ARE other ways of
identifying the creature (there are exceptions, as always), they just
haven't been taken into account by the authority explainging the
identification (particulalry if they are engrossed in making a key).  My
favourite example of this involves two icneumonoid wasps we have over here,
Nitellia and Ophion, which can be 'identified by the triangular shape of the
scutellum' in one genus - you immediatley think 'must be very difficult to
identify', until you see the two - they are markedly different in life, both
colour-wise and in the amount of lateral compression ('thinness').

> The public has figured this out, and it makes our efforts to preserve
> habitat (which really is unique and important) much more difficult.
> We need to save the habitat of the Delhi Flower-Loving Fly; the fly
> itself may not be all that unique when you get down to it.
>

This is why conservation often used 'key' or identifier species (Giant
Panda, Phillipine Eagle, Apollo < the butterfly>, etc.) - saving these often
requires the conservation of the habitat (daren't use the word
'preservation' as you could vnever realy do that - habitats are dynamic
after all), which means that a lot more species are saved, usually.

> Common names (for field book use) should be in the vernacular of the
> country where the bug or whatever hangs out, don't you think? If the
> book is in English, then the English name could certainly be added, if
> there is one.
> The bird book I use here has a handful of names for each bird ...

This is a good idea (see a related posting of mine) - and there are some
bird sites on the web that list numbers of such vernaculars.  Perhaps
someone's started one for other groups?

> But, unless a bug is useful, edible or annoying, it isn't likely to have
> a common name. I see no reason to invent one unless an editor demands
> it. In such a case, just translate the scientific one.

Isn't that inventing one? You sometimes get two species within the same
genus that look different in the scientific name (can't think of one at the
moment, typical!), but when translated mean exactly the same; often the
problems are over colours, e.g. 'ater' and 'niger' (not nigrescens, because
that means 'going black' or 'blackish' - have never seen the alternative,
and 'aterrimus' means 'very black', so how would you translate that one?)

Kevin