NABA Names Committee

[Kelly Richers]

The tone of the reply to the list from J. Scott is why I recommended Felix disengage himself from the list committee.  To assume that Felix has been heavy handed in his reply is to assume that the arguments he raised are not valid.  They are. The polarization of the people from NABA and Lep Soc is a perceived issue that doesn't seem to be going away.  Until it is addressed in a conciliatory manner, which seems to be difficult, the formation of agreeing committees is a moot point in a pointless situation.

>>> Jane V Scott <jvscott at naba.org> 03/30/00 07:31AM >>>
The message I posted on March 27, announcing the formation of the NABA 
Names Committee (it had been formed and working for quite some time) was 
a message from the entire committee. This current message is from me, 
Jeffrey Glassberg, and may not represent the full and complete views of 
some or all other NABA Names Committee members.

In that earlier message, we let you know about the existence of the NABA 
Names Committee, of its reasons for existence, of its activities and 
goals, and asked for your help in locating certain publications that we 
may have overlooked.  Because it was relevant to a history of the NABA 
Names Committee, we mentioned the existence of an ad hoc committee 
chaired by Paul Opler that is developing its own nomenclature.  We did 
not characterize that committee, either as a group or as individuals. 

In a March 28 message to this group, one of the members of the Opler ad 
hoc committee, Felix Sperling, makes statements regarding the NABA Names 
Committee that casts both the NABA Names Committee and its individual 
members in an unfavorable light and that I believe distorts the truth. I 
would first like to reiterate the history of the NABA Names Committee 
and the ad hoc committee headed by Paul Opler and to comment on some 
particular remarks of Felix Sperling.

	1992. NABA is formed
	1992. NABA forms an English Names Committee
	1993. NABA publishes first installment of Checklist and English 
Names of North American Butterflies (hereafter, First Edition).
	1995. NABA publishes completed First Edition.
	1995. NABA formally approaches the Lepidopterists* Society 
urging it to form a scientific names committee, and saying that only if 
the Lepidopterists* Society did not form such a committee then NABA 
would.
	1995. Lepidopterists* Society declines to form a scientific 
names committee.
	1996. NABA approaches Robert Robbins of the Smithsonian 
Institution about forming a NABA Scientific Names Committee. Robert 
Robbins declines to chair such a committee because of other commitments, 
but suggests approaching Paul Opler.
	1997. NABA approaches Paul Opler about chairing a NABA 
committee. Paul Opler agrees to form a scientific names committee, and 
at NABA*s suggestion John Burns, Robert Robbins, and Felix Sperling are 
made part of the committee, along with Don LaFontaine, with whom Paul 
Opler was already working.
	1998. Opler committee decides it will be an ad hoc committee, 
not part of NABA. 
	1998. Opler ad hoc committee decides that it will use the 
species* taxonomies published in Butterflies of Canada and in Peterson 
Field Guide to Western Butterflies as its starting list.
	1999. The Opler ad hoc committee proposes a starting list with 
52 changes (counting, for example, splitting 1 species into 4 as a 
single change) from the NABA list, in spite of 1) the fact that the 
status of almost all taxa on the NABA list were decided explicitly 
because that is the way they were treated in Paul Opler*s 1992 work, 
Peterson Field Guide to Eastern Butterflies and  2) the fact there has 
been no compelling scientific information published supporting almost 
any of these proposed changes. 
	Nov.1999. After verbally communicating to committee members for 
more than a year that NABA would not adopt such a list and would proceed 
itself to revise the First Edition, I, solely at the sole of Felix 
Sperling, and in the interests of the butterflying community, informed 
the Opler ad hoc committee that I would accept the Opler ad hoc 
committee*s list, even though I strongly disagreed with most of the 
changes, if it dropped 11 changes that I believe are the most 
unwarranted and that also are, and will, cause the most confusion and 
frustration for butterfliers. 
	Feb. 2000. Although a majority of its members favored my 
proposal, in the end the Opler ad hoc committee rejected this proposal 
and following conversations, the NABA English Names Committee agreed to 
become the NABA Names Committee, considering all aspects of North 
American butterfly names.

What should be clear from the above is that NABA has had a longstanding 
and abiding interest in the names of North American butterflies and 
requires a committee to decide the names that NABA will use.  As stated 
in a previous message, NABA needs a consistent set of names for its own 
use, in the NABA 4th of July Butterfly Counts and in NABA publications. 
We have waited long enough. Given the above history, NABA will not adopt 
"en toto" the names proposed by any other group, but will consider all 
published information regarding any name. 	The NABA Names Committee 
will change any name, or status of any taxon, for which there is 
published information that provides a compelling case for change. I 
think that most people can understand the concept that if an 
organization has adopted a taxonomic list as the official list of that 
organization, and if this list has been widely disseminated and relied 
upon by many individuals and other organizations (as the NABA Checklist 
has), then the organization would be remiss to change names on  that 
list without very strong evidence that the original list is in error.  
Largely because of NABA there are now many thousands of people actively 
involved with North American butterflies. Changing the names or species 
status of butterflies on personal whim, or the "recommendation" of a 
friend, or on the basis of anecdotal information regarding a species* 
status, is no longer an acceptable modus operandi. 

Felix Sperling says "the results [of the NABA Names Committee]* will be 
congruent with Glassberg*s new book while Opler*s book and the Layberry 
et.al. book will be out of synch." 

The implied suggestion here seems to be that perhaps I desire this 
outcome, perhaps for some type of commercial reason or perhaps an ego 
thing? * nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone who would think 
that the taxonomy used in a butterfly guide offered to the public would 
have one scintilla of an effect on book sales is living on a different 
planet. The Audubon Society Field Guide to Butterflies is 20 years out 
of date, follows Miller-Brown, and thus is completely out of sync with 
the NABA list, however it is by far the largest selling butterfly guide. 
As far as ego goes, I think I must be among the first of authors to have 
chosen not to impose my own views on a species* status in books that 
I*ve written. The books have been consistent with the First Edition, 
i.e., essentially the taxonomy in Paul Opler*s Peterson Field Guide to 
Eastern Butterflies, even when I personally disagreed with the taxonomy. 
If the Layberry et.al and Opler books are out of synch with the NABA 
list, as they are right now, that was the choice of those authors.  
Prior to the publication Butterflies of Canada and for years prior to 
the publication of the Peterson Field Guide to Western Butterflies, I 
strongly and repeatedly urged Don LaFontaine and Paul Opler to use the 
NABA list in those books.  I pointed out that one could use the NABA 
Checklist and make perfectly clear that one disagreed with it (as I have 
done in a number of cases). So, for example, one could illustrate all 
the subspecies of Anthocharis sara that one believes are really separate 
species, treat them under the heading Anthocharis sara, and state in the 
text they are listed as subspecies to be consistent with the NABA 
Checklist but that one is certain that they are separate species. Thus, 
in books intended for a mass market, readers (most of whom are 
beginners) see the same consistent concepts from book to book while the 
author clearly states his/her own view. In the end, those authors 
decided not to take this approach.
	It is very unlikely that my forthcoming Butterflies through 
Binoculars: The West will be congruent with the Second Edition of the 
NABA Checklist. The reason for this is that I need to finalize English 
and scientific names for this book within the next month, and the NABA 
Names Committee will not be able to consider all the names issues 
relevant to this book within that time period.  Thus, I will use the 
NABA First Edition as the basis for my taxonomy, only deviating from it 
in the few cases where the entire committee is already in complete 
agreement that a change is warranted. 
	Felix Sperling says that I announced the formation of my 
committee the other day. The NABA Names Committee has been in existence 
for the past five years. He also said "presumably this new group will 
now accommodate Glassberg*s wishes for a list with fewer changes from 
the NABA First Edition list" Again, completely contrary to Felix 
Sperling*s heavy-handed insult to the other members of the NABA Names 
Committee, the NABA Names Committee consists of five very strong-willed 
people, all of whom passionately care about butterflies and their names. 
 As it turns out, I believe that it is a fair statement that a number 
(probably a majority) of the NABA Names Committee members are even more 
opposed to changing names than I am. While my suggestions are often 
adopted, as any of you who read the detailed discussions that 
accompanied the First Edition of the NABA Checklist know, I am often 
outvoted (I was the 1 in many of those 4-1 votes.).  I don*t ask people 
to join a committee because they are likely to agree with me!