New species of skipper (Dalla ?)

[Chris J. Durden]

At 11:18  18/02/00 -0800, you wrote:
 
>No, copyright law does not apply to scientific names, and thank god it
>doesn't! Imagine how much it would cost to publish the results of one's
>research if every time you referred to a species, you had to pay a royalty?
>BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE ARGUING FOR EXACTLY THIS.
- - -
 Reminds me of the time legislators from the Pacific Northwest tried to
have Congress change *Salmonella* to another name, because it is bad
publicity for the salmon industry!
- - -
 Almost as bad, the naming of
>new species is not regulated or reviewed, so if people with no taxonomic
>training want to auction off names on eBay, like - say - new names for
>Morpho rhetenor - there's nothing to stop them from doing it, making every
>specimen in their collection into a holotype. "Here, look at this gorgeous
>butterfly - I'll name it after you!". Doesn't matter if it already has a
>name, since the ICZN doesn't *prohibit* people from knowingly creating
>synonymies. If you have 50 Morpho rhetenors, that's 50 new species you can
>name, all legally, even if they're not *valid* names. Won't that be fun
>when we have to list a few *thousand* synonymies for every flashy butterfly
>and beetle?
- - -
 eBay seems to be somewhat self regulating, like taxonomy. Not too long ago
there was an interesting "fossil" wasp "in" a "meteorite" offered. Critical
comments led to withdrawal of the offer before sale. There were also
illustrations of rare stamps cut from a dealer's catalog, offered as the
originals.
 I don't think one could expect a significant bid on a name for a "new
species" that looked just like one of the existing forms of "M. rhetenor".
I suspect the process would be as self regulatory as the meteorite fossil
and the stamps and a lot safer than stock in a gold mine.
........Chris
- - - -
>
>Argh.
>
>
>Dr. Douglas Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
>Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521
 >