NABA Checklist

[Michael Gochfeld]

Frequent mention has been made of the NABA CHECKLIST (actually the North 
American Butterfly Association (NABA) Checklist & English Names of North 
American Buterflies.   I think this is now out of print, and since it is 
four years old it is ripe for revision, since a number of new species 
have been added to the U.S. "list". 

Ken has pointed out some of the limitations.  Perhaps it would be useful 
to understand some features of this list.  Its intent and purpose are 
clearly stated in a detailed introduction which describes the procedures 
by which the names were determined. 

Firstly it does not include all of North America, only North America 
north of Mexico.  Its two main purposes were to provide a standard list 
of English names, and to provide guidance for the rapidly growing cadre 
of butterfly watchers, most of whom were not familiar with butterfly 
scientific names nor the typical systematic literature. 

In fact, the committee that prepared the list is named the "Committee 
for English Names of North American Butterflies".  Its members are Brian 
Cassie, Jeffrey Glassberg, Paul Opler, Robert Robbins, Guy Tudor.  At 
least two of these are widely recognized systematists, with an 
appropriate familiarity with the subtleties of genitalia, behavior, and 
other traditional taxonomic characters. 

So the NABA list was not intended to be a scientific checklist.  
Nonetheless, the authors did attempt to be uptodate with regard to 
species level taxonomy, and included several well-marked subspecies 
complexes where the species level decisions are particularly 
controversial.  Inevitably other controveries will arise, particularly 
with wider application of molecular systematics. 

The list employed a number of nouveau systematic changes, such as the 
lumping of Mitroura into Callophrys as well as some species level 
lumpings, for instands within Callophrys [Mitroura] gryneus.  It also 
paved the way for the eventual splitting of the "Spring Azures" by 
listing six different "subspecies", several of which are apparently 
specifically distinct. 

Almost half of the volume is devoted to "notes", but most of these have 
to do with how the English names were selected, particularly when there 
was disagreement within the Committee.  A few of these notes have 
systematic content, while some focus as well on orthography (things like 
hypenation). 

Already a few species have shown up north of the Rio Grande, and it is 
not surprising if other subspecies will be elevated to specific rank. 

Probably the ultimate approach will be to use a computerized version of 
the list which has adequate flexibility to allow individuals to insert 
(or delete) taxa as desired. I'm currently reviewing a computerized list 
LEPILIST (Santa Barbara Software) which holds great promise in this 
regard, and will someday be ready to post a review to the list. 

 Someone might wish to insert subspecies for a favored genus or family. 
 But although the Miller and Brown (1981) checklist include subspecies 
(with excellent synonymy detail), the NABA committee, I'm told, did 
consider this source.

This is a long way of saying there is no single definitive list, and the 
taxonomy of N.American butterflies is not likely to "hold still".  New 
taxonomic approaches will alter understanding of relationships among 
genera, species, and subspecies, resulting in new combinations of 
scientific names (which is why many people feel that English names will 
ultimately be more stable) (No, this whole message was not simply an 
introduction to that final polemic).    

M. Gochfeld