sub-specific names

Chris J. Durden drdn at
Sun Oct 22 03:04:16 EDT 2000

  Postings to leps-l have been few for the past few days. Lets see if yours
is carried through on this.
At 01:23  22/10/00 -0400, you wrote:
>    I am getting very little in or out via Leps-L for about a week. I
>finally put one of my other emial addresses as a subscriber and got a couple
>things in today, but I still can't get anything out. I have sent the
>sub-specific names thing about 10 times in the last wo days and only one has
>come through -- and as you can see the text didn't make it. Lets try this. I
>will copy the message here and if you would be so kind, perhaps you can copy
>it again into a "new message" and send it  out. Then If it goes through,
>well beats me! It think my "Regal errors" message made it out the other day.
>I have only received about one message a day the last week.
>From Ron Gatrelle,
>    What a beautiful October 21st this is. Our cold spell (down to 60's) is
>over and we are back to our seasonal low 80's. When November gets here I'll
>check out the Phyciodes texana seminole final brood locally and in Georgia.
>But this is not the purpose of this e-blurb.
>    We are all familiar with the name Hillary Rodham Clinton. Taxonomic
>names are "laid out" just like women's names. Hillary (genus) Rodham
>(species) Clinton (subspecies). She has always been and will always be a
>Hillary and a Rodham. However, she is no longer referred to as Hillary
>Rodham. In fact to call her Hillary Rodham would be totally unacceptable --
>wrong -- insulting.
>    My own daughter has had to occasionally remind me that she is not a
>Gatrelle but a Mueller. Because we understand how maiden names function, we
>thus use them correctly for married women. Subspecific names ARE the names
>of what something is -- NOT the specific name. Yet, subspecific names are
>becoming "extinct" in usage. (If you make the name extinct, the next step is
>for the organism to become extinct.)
>    Technically, every species has a trinomial standing even if no "other"
>sub-components (subspecies) are yet recognized. Speyeria idalia idalia is
>not incorrect. That is, it does not present the organism as something other
>than what it is. Because no OTHER subspecies are (yet) recognized we simply
>say Speyeria idalia. Speyeria aphrodite is ALWAYS incorrect unless
>accompanied by a clear statement that there are many "sisters" each having
>their own SPECIFIC identity (married name). Speyeria aphrodite aphrodite and
>Speyeria aphrodite whitehousei are extremely different as are Speyeria
>cybele cybele and Speyeria cybele leto. If we are to use common names (which
>I greatly disfavor) then each TAXON must be given its own. Eastern Regal
>(type locality NY), Western Regal (subspecies/type locality to be
>    The subspecific name is what something actually IS evolutionally. The
>specific name is was it WAS evolutionally. Don't let the prefix "sub"
>mislead you. For the sub delineates the specific -- sub-specific. Ford is
>specific. Ford Taurus is more specific. Ford Taurus sedan is very specific.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Chris J. Durden" <drdn at>
>To: <rgatrelle at>
>Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 12:51 AM
>Subject: Re: sub-specific names
>> Nothing in the message!
>> At 10:03  21/10/00 -0400, you wrote:
>> >
>> >


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list