Kilmer on Common
Michael Gochfeld
gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu
Sat Nov 4 06:57:55 EST 2000
I didn't get a chance to respond to Ann(e) Kilmer's elegant exposition
on common names. Joanna Burger (wife) and I dealt with this in our
BUTTERFLIES OF NEW JERSEY BOOK, by separating "systematics", "taxonomy",
"classification" and "nomenclature" as slightly overlapping but
different endeavors.
The notion that any rule of priority applies to common (or English or
colloquial or vernacular) names is simply wrong (as Anne emphasized). It
has never had any basis. We may choose to use that as a basis for coming
to agreement on a common name (not everyone agrees that we need a single
authoritative list of common names, but then again we certainly don't
have it for scientific names since they are changed with every taxonomic
"whim").
I think that the NABA checklist exemplified that error in using the name
"Southern Hairstreak" for the lumped Satyrium [Fixsenia] favonius. The
subspecies S. ontario or Northern Hairstreak and S. favonius or Southern
Hairstreak. Because favonius had technical priority, its common name
was likewise assigned to the species. This was simply an error,
resulting in confusion. Indeed, as hairstreaks go the species is not
particularly southern or northern in its distribution. When two species
are lumped, it is reasonable to seek a more general name to describe the
species as a whole (particularly in this case when neither common name
was really good to begin with).
On the other hand when NABA lumped the Olive and Juniper Hairstreaks,
the scientific name of the former and common name of the latter were
applied.
M. Gochfeld
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
More information about the Leps-l
mailing list