common names

[mbpi at juno.com]

Hi all,

I'd like to offer my rebuttal on Ron's "elitist" post on "common names of
butterflies."  

At the risk of sounding "amateurish," I find the use of common names a
helpful frame-of-reference.  

For example:  when someone on this listserv starts expounding on some
foreign species or subspecies, and doesn't even give "a clue" to the
family of that species...such as nymphalid or lycenid, much less "brush
foot" or "gossamer wings," it's very hard for someone who isn't familiar
with the "taxa of the world" to get a picture of what the elitist is
referring to (!)  To my way of thinking, it is a passive-aggressive ploy
to "exclude" anyone who hasn't been studying butterflies for the past 25
years...let them "figure it out" (!)  It seems to me you don't really
"want" to educate the ignorant masses, and would much prefer to keep your
"coveted and covert knowledge" just that.

Come on, Ron!  Give us credit where credit is due.  When I studied
systematics in college, we always started with Family Characteristics. 
Learning the "Family" first and foremost, allowed one to categorize an
individual:  be it one of a few or a thousand, depending on the plant or
animal.  From that point, one can use a field guide to determine the
genus and species.  Learning scientific names is easy if you SEE the
subject a number of times, or study its dentition or carpals or genitalia
under a dissecting microscope.  How many people actually have that
opportunity at their disposal?!

Believe me, if you were actually willing to impart even a tad bit more
"information" than the majority of you do, the subjugated amateurs on
this listserv would "fly"  They might even feel free to "express"
themselves (!)

Then...watch out!!!!  Maybe that's what you're afraid of ?!

M.B. Prondzinski
USA



On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:12:57 -0400 "Ron Gatrelle" <gatrelle at tils-ttr.org>
writes:
> The following line is lifted from a recent post by Pierre Zagatti on 
> the
> subject of where to, and not to, collect in France.
> 
> "The [web] site is in French, but without any problems for 
> scientific names
> :-)
> -no flame against US lovers of common names- :-)))"
> 
> This line prompts me to return to the topic of common vs. scientific 
> names.
> As I have mentioned before, I use common names at times, and for 
> some taxa
> or families most of the time. There is certainly a place for common 
> names.
> That placed however, is no where near the same rung on the ladder as
> scientific names. In this post I am focusing on the international
> linguistic aspect of common vs. technical "names". (Common names are 
> true
> names. Scientific "names" are not names at all but technical
> classifications  - water (English name) agua (Spanish name)  vs. 
> H2O, Gold
> vs. Au, etc.
> 
> Common names vary greatly - and always will. They can never be 
> standardized
> until all inhabitants of earth speak only one "common" tongue. 
> Scientific
> terms on the other hand are already recognized, read, and understood 
> by
> everyone on Earth. Not only in speech but in text.
> 
> Ok, some will say they want to just standardize "common" names in 
> the
> various linguistic regions - e.g. North America.    WHY?     They 
> are
> already
> standardized via scientific classification.
> 
> The argument with this is that the technical names seem to be 
> multiple
> choice
> and only one name is needed - a common name.  A common name that the
> proponents of see as something that will not ever change - like 
> Spring
> Azure. OOPS until a researcher finds out that there are 10 different
> species
> under this name and then guess what. Common names are changed, added 
> to or
> subtracted.
> 
> Common names seem wise to those who have little or no grasp of the
> rules of scientific language and systematic taxonomy - amateurs
> (beginners). And here is where I agree with common names - they are 
> useful
> for beginners. However, to me, many of the U.S. promoters of common 
> name
> usage don't just see them as a starting point, they seem to see 
> these
> American English names as the end point to the degree that 
> scientific names
> should be done away with - in anything other than dry academic 
> writings.
> 
> I will also say this. The line of reasoning that something 
> (anything) is
> too complicated for some or most people to grasp is condescending 
> and
> elitist on the part of those who look down the masses. I remember 
> the first
> time -decades ago- I heard the argument that these Latinized names 
> were to
> hard for beginners to learn and understand. As a beginner myself 
> then and
> an observer of the debate, that seemed reasonable to me. That is 
> untill it
> was pointed out that children (under 6) use and understand Latinized 
> names
> just fine - Hippopotamus, Tyrannosaurus rex, Papilio etc.....
> 
> RG
> 
> 
> 
>  
>  ------------------------------------------------------------ 
> 
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> 
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl 
>  
> 

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl