Butterfly Names

[Don Lafontaine]

As a person who has been mentioned in recent discussions (i.e. Don Lafontaine,
an author of The Butterflies of Canada), and as a second member of the former
NABA Scientific Names Committee, I thought it might be helpful if I added my
voice to Felix's to give a second opinion to the discussions.

First a little background. When I began to prepare material for a book on the
butterflies of Canada (with Ross Layberry and Peter Hall), it immediately became
apparent that there were conflicting views as to what the species actually were
(i.e. species limits) and what genera should be applied to them. The literature
tended to use a name without reference to alternative opinions, or discussions
of reasons (e,g, the Tiger Swallowtail in Canada was called Pterourus glaucus by
some authors and Papilio canadensis by others). I prepared a list of areas of
disgreement in the literature for both genera and species and began to pull
together articles pertaining to the debate. I also did genitalia dissections of
many species and generic complexes to see if claims in the literature could be
validated with new material. I also contacted taxonomists working in these areas
to get addition opinions on these issues since in many instances the "correct
answer" turned out to be a "gray area" with opinions that could go either way,
depending on species definitions, historical practice (i.e. stability), etc.  I
also worked on this closely with Paul Opler because I have great respect for him
as a scientist, and knew he was in mid-preparation of revisions of both eastern
and western Peterson guides. We didn't agree on every issue, but in the
interests of stability in butterfly names we were able to prepare a consensus
list that we could both agree to. Incidentally, stability in names does not mean
"no change"  it just means that in cases where there is no clear evidence to
decide on way or the other, pick the best option (after input from the
scientific and amateur communities, both of which have a lot to offer) and stick
with it until compelling information requires a change. From this open forum,
which included discussions with Jeff Glassberg, a NABA Scientific Names
Committee was formed.

My own view of such a committee is that it would be a group of hopefully
repected scientists conducting taxonomic research that would periodically review
suggested changes in the literature, and in consultation with the "butterfly
community" make recommendations on the name usage. Most of os know about the AOU
(American Ornithologists' Union) whose Scientific Committee does this for the
bird world. Most of us don't subscribe to the AUK, or see the taxonomic
discussions that go on behind the scenes, but these deliberations and decisions
are seen regularly in the many new and revised Birding books appearing with
amazing frequency, and are also amazing consistent in what names they use for
birds. We all may not agree that a Bicknell's Thrush is really different from
the Gray-cheeked Thrush, but it falls into general usage because of the respect
for the Committee, and because of the great value in the community of birders
being united for environmental, conservation, listing, and data-basing issues.

Because of the great rate at which new opinions on taxonomy of North Americanm
butterflies is appearing, and many of these publications are not in scientific
peer-reviewed journals and books, I believe there is a desperate need for the
butterfly community to get there act together and get a list that people can
accept as credible and authoritative. Two committees are too many! One committee
that does not have the support of the butterfly community is also too many. But
none is too few -  and in the long run, deadly to our future credibility.

We in the Canadian National Insect Collection in Ottawa are well along on a
Web-based project on the butterflies of Canada with an interactive, searchable
data-base on all butterflies in Canadian Collections (about 1/2 a million
specimens, as well as acceptable sight reports) and we are hoping to expand the
project into the US and Mexico. We need a list of names with some stability!!

My recommended solution. Stop arguing about committees and start working
together for the future. Disband both committees and ask the Lepidoperists'
Society to form by appointment (or vote) a joint Scientific Names Committee with
a membership agreeable to both organizations.

What do you think???

Sincerely,

Don Lafontaine, Curator
Canadian National Collection
Lepidoptera Section



wanda wrote:

> It seems clear to me that other lep organizations defaulted by declining
> to take on the project of coming up with a standardized U.S. butterfly
> list.   A NABA names group put forth the effort of creating a
> standardized list of both scientific & common names.   As a result THE
> NABA LIST BECAME THE STANDARD!   This is substantiated in that these
> names are recognized by most formal entities, in addition to the vast
> majority of individuals interested in butterflies.
>
> With a standard list, there needs to be a consistent, formal way of
> updates being made, with results published on a somewhat regular
> basis.   It's just a little messy now, in the early stages, until the
> various procedures & group inter- relationships get worked out.
>
> I still would like to see the scientific group play catchup on some of
> the formalities, so they can be out front in leading us with their
> systematic information while the NABA group can provide them their
> views, make decisions that affect NABA, then publish the final
> documented decisions.
>
> It works in the ornithological world between the AOU (the independent
> scientific oversight group) & ABA (the popularized birding group) and
> don't see why it can't work here...
>
>                                         Cheers, Wanda Dameron
>                                                 Lorquin, LepSoc, LA-NABA
>                                                 ATL, Xerces, Flutterby Press