[SoWestLep] Lep Publications - A Call for Information

[Hank & Priscilla Brodkin]

"Chris J. Durden" wrote:
> 
> From: "Chris J. Durden" <drdn at mail.utexas.edu>
> 
> Hank,
>   I think we are a long, long way from the useful situation you describe.
> We have many years of basic data gathering, interpretation and taxonomy to
> do before we can present a simple picture of what is out there. Ornithology
> has done so much more of this work for birds, that some standardization is
> now possible, but as you see over the last 20 years there are still large
> changes in a group as well known as birds.
>   A: The plus side of standardization - it facilitates communication among
> those who would use the data.
>   B: The minus side of standardization - it discourages innovative
> reexamination of established "facts" - the essence of science.
(portion deleted)


Chris -
Thanks for your complete and most interesting reply to my post.  I do
agree with most of what you say.
However I do not agree that standardization necessarily discourages
"innovative reexamination of established 'facts' - the essence of
science."
I believe that the essence of science, or at least one of the essences,
is the questioning of established facts.  Let me discuss this is a very
narrow sense - again using the example I know best - the AOU checklist
committee.  The decisions of that committee are constantly being
questioned by other ornithologists.  And I am sure that the committee,
being composed of scientists, welcomes that.  Every theory will be
questioned - that is what scientists do best.  Doubt and conjecture are
the parents of science.  
The only people who complain, for instance, about the name changes and
the flip-flops of the AOU committee, are the non-scientists.  In birding
it is the listers who complain - usually because it screws up their bird
list.  They really hate lumping - but they love splitting.  Frankly, I
don't think the grousing of listers should count for much in the field
of science.
But the most confusing system of all occurs when one scientist, no
matter how academically proficient, publishes a book, and requests that
everyone follow his lead taxonomically - without some authority from his
peers saying that is, for now, the right decision.  A checklist
committee is the only way I can see to handle this.
The operative phrase here is "for now".  And usually, if the scientists
are doing their job, at some point in the future, someone will argue
persuasively that the original decision was wrong.
What we are really talking about here is establishment of  theories of
taxonomic relationships based on sound research and peer review.
I am not a scientist.  But my requests to those of you who are:  Do your
work, publish your results in whatever journal you chose, allow this
material to be synthesized for the many amateurs amongst us, and
published in a central venue, elect a committee of your finest
taxonomists to make the most accurate checklist they are able based on
the material available, and then accept, with an open mind, any changes
that might be proven in the future.
Sorry to take so much bandwidth on this!
-- 
	             Hank & Priscilla Brodkin
	          Carr Canyon, Cochise County, AZ
             SouthEast Arizona Butterfly Association
          http://www.naba.org/chapters/nabasa/home.html