Butterfly Names

[Kelly Richers]

Since the Lep Soc elects new officers each year, what does it mean "beholden to the Lep soc"?  There is no agenda representative of the entire lep soc.

>>> wanda <be496 at lafn.org> 03/30/00 09:42PM >>>
Dear Don,

Glad to hear your views.  Agree wholeheartedly that, (1) there are many
complications in taxonomic decisions and that (2) we do need
standardized lists, which give us a basis from which to work.  For those
reasons, I would like to see basic taxonomic decisions come from a
widely recognized group of independant professional entomologists, as
the 5 of you are, not beholden to represent LepSoc, NABA, Xerces, HTL or
any other group.   You 5 have the education and longterm experience to
evaluate submitted studies, other input, etc, just what info needs
consideration and/or what may be missing or given short shrift.
  
I strongly feel there does have to be (1) a consistent pattern and rules
of how your Group would make decisions and (2) for the results to be
published or posted on a fairly regular basis (once a year?) for the lep
community to be aware and upon which to base other plans/actions.   With
the AOU, the birding community knows what species are on the agenda,
which other studies are being considered for future agendas and
approximately when their annual reports will be coming down.

Most of our problem in this matter seems to be in getting this set up
AND taking action.  Maybe there is some way that you 5 would have the
responsibility of the taxonomic decisions and the NABA group would be in
charge of common names.   I realize this is all volunteer work which
further complicates things, especially the timeliness, but that would
need to be part of the commitment.    

As adults with pretty much the same goals for furthering lep
info/conservation, it seems there should be some way to work out the
details.....   Is there some way the NABA group would agree to not make
taxonomic changes in their pressing need to make updates?   (Yes, make
minor scientific name changes, i.e. put the h in Heliconius charithonia
and correct S. columella to Strymon istapa)   This could be posted on
the NABA and perhaps the npwrc.gov sites.   Maybe NABA could sell copies
of the website interim list for those not online.    This would give the
entomologists say a year to get the pressing taxonomic considerations 
made before an expensive update would be published....  ????   They
should also post a list of species under consideration fairly soon
--preferably both wetsites.   Does this sound reasonable and enough of a
basis for Jeff & Paul to start a discussion?   (Or perhaps Paul would
prefer to designate someone as will be going out of town very shortly?)

					Hopefully,  Wanda Dameron						

Don Lafontaine wrote:
> 
> 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