NABA Names Committee - explanatory comments and a question

[MJS323]

Felix;
   Here is my input on the official names committees for what it is worth.  I
think there is a need for "official" names lists for both the Common Names and
Scientific Names of butterflies.  These official names are useful for
communication and for museums to store and categorize specimens.  The
committees would need to meet at least annually to update the names lists based
on new taxonomy, new species/subspecies, and to react to the various inputs
from the field.  The problem with the most current scientific names checklists,
Miller and Brown, Ferris, Hodges, etc.; is that they are all seriously outdated
by the current taxonomy and new works, so how does one incorporate these new
things or the new taxonomy into the existing checklists.  This also becomes
true for common names as relationships change there (Chlosyne neumoegeni is now
a subspeceis of Chlosyne acastus, for example).  There will always be many who
won't accept any specific list of Common Names or of Scientific Names, but that
is a given.  Many do accept the lists, even if just for communication purposes
if not in agreement.  I think the official lists are needed and are important.
   For historical reasons and for the established pattern, I think that NABA
should be the official keeper of the Common Names list; and the Lepidopterists'
Society should be the keeper of the Scientific Names list.  I think these
committees should be meeting at least annually and updating the lists yearly. 
With publishing of the lists on the web, under NABA and Lep Society sites, I
think keeping the current list available is much easier than publishing a copy
annually.  With increasing communication about butterflies, with the increasing
use of butterflies as habitat indicators, the need for "official" lists is
important.  Having two or three "official" lists becomes a problem because we
are right back where we started from.  
   Lets have the lists, lets have the experts on each committee, lets have NABA
manage the Common Names list, and lets have the Lepidopterists Society handle
the Scientific Names list.  Lets get the communications system made easier and
then we can continue our taxonomic arguments and agreements/disagreements over
common names.  But in the meantime, lets use the official lists as the names
for our communications.  
   Felix, you are a perfect member of both committees, and having some of the
members be the same can improve the consistency between the two names lists.
   Sorry for the length of this opinion, but you asked.

Mike Smith