[Fwd: NABA Names Committee -Reply]

[wanda]

I had written the following reply and think the proposal may have some
worth toward a potential solution; submitting it for consideration and
possible basis or stimulation of others.  
			Cheers, Wanda Dameron, San Fernando Valley, Calif.

> 
> Dear Felix and Jeff,
> 
>         As both a LepSoc & NABA member, I was delighted to learn of your
> committees formation and charge.   Furthermore, it seemed the right
> touch to have an independent scientific committee that hopefully would
> bridge the gap, however real or imagined, between the two
> organizations.   (Yes, in NABA we sometimes do catch & release or even
> take a few.   We also realize the necessity of various scientific
> studies that can only be done through collecting.)  This group seemed to
> be comparable to the AOU (American Ornithological Union) scientific
> committee that essentially reviews and rules on published scientific
> bird evidence.   An ABA (American Birding Association) committee then
> evaluates their evidence and normally follows, with their additional
> rulings also including whether accepted within a particular area as an
> established  viable population or as an immigrant.   In any event, we
> strongly need the scientific community leading the way and advising the
> rest of us.   We are most grateful for your sharing of your education,
> many efforts & accrued knowledge over the years.
> 
>         Jeff has also done wonders for the butterfly community, raising
> awareness for leps and the vast need for conservation measures.  He
> deserves many kudos for starting & popularizing NABA, personally backing
> the publication and organization to provide a healthy beginning.   We
> all heartily applaud him, even though we don't always agree with exactly
> everything he says or does.
> 
>         In all honesty, while it appears unseemly for Jeff to make demands in
> his name alone and at a late date,  I am sympathetic to Jeff's timing of
> wanting answers asap for his book, as a revision to my book, "Searching
> for Butterflies in So. Calif." is being held up until there is
> clarification & acceptance of a standardized  nomenclature.
> 
>         Realize that getting your organization started takes time to iron our
> the ground rules, etc. but it has been 3 years since you started
> meeting.   Didn't the entire original standardized nomenclature get
> accepted in that time?
> 
>         Since timeliness is a major concern, is there some way that the two
> groups could come up with some compromise?   It sounds like there are
> only 11 species that are truly in question.   Since you will be meeting
> next month and surely you all know the 11 species background in
> question, perhaps they could be made an agenda priority?
> 
>         It seems that this action would then probably catch you up for the
> short term, allowing current publications to advance as you delve into
> other problems and provide the desired leadership we so desparately want
> & need. I can't urge you strongly enough of the necessity to meet on
> common grounds and work this out for the benefit of all.   Life is too
> short and we all need to get along for the long term effects on the
> leps.
> 
>                                                 Wanda Dameron
>                                                 San Fernando Valley, Ca.
>                                                 Lorquin, LepSoc, LA-NABA,
>                                                 ATL, Xerces, Flutterby Press
> 
> 
> Felix Sperling wrote:
> >
> > >NABA Names Committee: Request for information
> >
> > Well, now we have two committees trying to provide updated butterfly
> > names lists for North America. Both are intended to reduce the
> > "confusing welter of butterfly names". Both groups were initiated
> > by Jeffrey Glassberg. As a member of the first committee, I think
> > it is time for me to describe the events that have led up to this
> > counterproductive juncture, and to ask for some feedback from you.
> > Most of you are potential users of these names lists and many of
> > you are also members of NABA or Lep Soc or both. Basically I am
> > asking whether you would rather deal with an "official" NABA names
> > list or a names list produced by our now-independent committee.
> >
> > The first group is composed of five professional systematists,
> > including Paul Opler (chair), Don Lafontaine, John Burns, Bob
> > Robbins, and Felix Sperling. [However, in this note I speak only
> > for myself (Felix), and I have not run the note past my fellow
> > committee members.] As a committee, we have now met in person
> > three times since 1997, first to sort out operating principles and to
> > agree on a starting point, and finally to consider about a dozen name
> > changes that relate to recent publications. Paul Opler put a request
> > for input into the Lepidopterists' News last summer, and put a precis
> > of our deliberations out on Leps-l this past January 8th. We got
> > feedback on the precis from several people, some of it positive and
> > some of it negative but constructive. Probably the most important
> > comment was that we needed to spend more time explaining the basis
> > for our recommendations, and we would certainly take that criticism to
> > heart for our next round.
> >
> > One of our earliest decisions was to use, as a starting point, a
> > coordinated names list that Paul Opler and Don Lafontaine had put
> > together for the Peterson Field Guide to the Western Butterflies,
> > (by Opler) and The Butterflies of Canada (by Layberry, Hall and
> > Lafontaine). Our reasons were simple; the newer coordinated list built on
> > the NABA First Edition list, to which Paul Opler contributed as a
> > committee member and by the committee's reliance on his Peterson
> > Field Guide to the Eastern Butterflies. Opler's western list and the
> > Layberry et al list took into account additional information that
> > was not acted on in the NABA First Edition list, which primarily relied
> > on information available up to 1992. Given that Layberry et al was in
> > press when we started as a committee, and Opler's western guide was in a
> > very late stage of preparation, we did not want to confuse matters further
> > nor indulge in a large amount of inefficient work by starting all over
> > again and producing yet another list. Although we all felt that the
> > newer list was on the whole an improvement over the NABA First Edition
> > list, not all committee members were satisfied with all names in that
> > list and in a very small number of cases I believe that most of us thought
> > the names should be reexamined. However, we thought that the least
> > confusing thing to do at this point would be to use this new aggregate
> > list as a jumping off point, and to focus on recent literature as well
> > as responses to a notice that Opler would put in The Lepidopterists' News.
> >
> > A second early decision that we made was to form an independent
> > committee that was not directly under NABA. Our primary reason was
> > that we did not want to contribute to exacerbating the split between
> > NABA and the Lepidopterists' Society. Our committee members included
> > members of the executive of both societies. We announced our intention to
> > other executive members of both societies and we did not receive any
> > indication that our independence automatically made our committee's
> > deliberations unacceptable to either society. I announced our work
> > personally to the Lep Soc, and got a cautiously positive response from
> > the executive. Their caution was mostly related to a desire not to be drawn
> > into what many of them saw (more clearly than I, in retrospect) as
> > a lot of work with little chance of a positive resolution.
> >
> > Then a couple of weeks before we were to meet this past fall, we
> > received a letter from Jeffrey Glassberg. He stated that he was willing
> > to accept most of the 52 differences between our list and the NABA
> > First Edition list, but if we did not rescind 11 of these changes
> > then he would not adopt our list in his forthcoming Butterflies
> > Through Binoculars: The West. Unfortunately, we already had prepared
> > for a full slate of names discussions based on recently published or
> > reevaluated material, and our travel plans were already set.
> > We had published a notice in Lep News in which we asked that requests
> > for our consideration be sent to us by the end of summer and Glassberg's
> > letter came far past that deadline. We simply did not have the time for
> > a serious consideration of these additional taxonomic problems, both
> > because we had too little time for preparation and we would have had to
> > abandon most of our original slate. Thus we decided to schedule our
> > next meeting for the following April, in addition to the meeting we
> > had already planned for the next October. The timing of this meeting
> > was intended to accommodate Glassberg's expected time of delivery of
> > his newest book to his publisher. Glassberg's response was to write us
> > saying that if we did not accede to his wishes on 11 taxa by January
> > 15th, 2000, then he would have a NABA Names Committee immediately
> > publish a second edition of the NABA checklist that incorporated only
> > the very most strongly supported changes from the first NABA list.
> >
> > Considering that the Opler and Layberry et al books had been published
> > by this time, the Butterflies of North America website also used
> > this list, and accommodation of Glassberg's ultimatum would cause
> > considerable personal disruption and expense to some committee members,
> > Paul Opler wrote back to request that Glassberg reconsider using our list.
> > I am not aware of any response by Glassberg.
> >
> > Yesterday we received a notice on Leps-l (also on Southwest Leps
> > list) originating from Glassberg, in which he announced his new NABA
> > committee
> > and requested information on any publications on butterfly systematics
> > in addition to the list he presented. The new NABA committee members
> > included four non-systematists (including himself) and one graduate
> > student in systematics. Presumably this new group will now
> > accommodate Glassberg's wishes for a list with fewer changes from the
> > NABA First Edition list. The result will be that the official NABA list,
> > which is used for the thriving butterfly counts that NABA sponsors,
> > will be congruent with Glassberg's new book while Opler's book and
> > the Layberry et al book will be out of synch.
> >
> > I originally agreed, on Glassberg's strong encouragement, to serve on a
> > committee to help stabilize and standardize North American butterfly
> > scientific names. The committee's goal is still one that I strongly
> > believe is a worthy one. No one is obligated to follow such a
> > committee's recommendations, but I think that even the simple existence
> > of a committee that evaluates proposed name changes would encourage
> > greater scientific rigor in future publications, and eventually greater
> > stability of names. Obviously, however, we now have a situation that
> > will only make this situation worse.
> >
> > Speaking just for myself, life is too short to put effort into
> > something that is clearly not wanted by the people who would use it.
> > I explicitly have not gotten academic credit for this kind of activity
> > from either of the universities where I have been a professor. I have to
> > admit that I would feel a twinge of regret that my services were being
> > rejected by the community that they are intended for. But heck, the
> > really satisfying work lies in working out the nuances of particular
> > species limits, and not in the inevitably more superficial exercise of
> > revising lists based on others' work.
> >
> > So - here's the point. Is it time to bow out and wish the NABA
> > Committee members well? Or is it time to dig in my heels?
> > Please cut out the following and let me know by mailing directly to
> > me at felix.sperling at ualberta.ca and *not* the whole list (unless of
> > course you want to use it as the basis for general discussion). I'll
> > post a tally when the replies peter out.
> >
> > 1. Advice to me:
> >      a. Cut your losses and run.
> >      b. Hang in there.
> >
> > 2. Respondent is:
> >      a. NABA member
> >      b. Lep Soc member
> >      c. both NABA and Lep Soc member
> >      d. member of neither
> >
> > Thanks for reading this far!
> >
> >         Felix Sperling        felix.sperling at ualberta.ca