Fw: Re: common names

[mbpi at juno.com]

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <mbpi at juno.com>
To: drdn at mail.utexas.edu
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 21:06:10 -0500
Subject: Re: common names
Message-ID: <20010420.210613.-219975.6.mbpi at juno.com>

Chris:

You are puting words in my mouth.  I do not appreciate that!

Until YOU can give a step-by-step method for learning the scientific
names of species YOU are "unfamiliar" with, than don't tell me I'm
speaking "nonsense."

As a professional actress:  I have had to "learn" hundreds of scripts,
songs, and dance steps.  I learned dance through "sight" and muscle
memory, and I learned scripts and songs through concentrated memorization
or "hearing" tapes.  Never underestimate the visual, audial and cognitive
associations.

"Words" are meaningless, unless they have a frame of reference.  If you
don't know Urdu, it has no meaning (!)  Scientific nomenclature, in
regards to speciation, is usually based on the discoverer, which has no
point of reference except to the person who it was named after (!)  It
doesn't tell you anything about the characteristics of the individual
being described.

Children learn the names of dinosaurs and flowers through PICTURES or
SOUND or exposure:  not words.  The brain is far more complex than you
are willing to accede.  "Parrots" can learn vocabulary without
meaning....and even that can be argued.

M.B. Prondzinski

On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 20:35:36 -0500 "Chris J. Durden"
<drdn at mail.utexas.edu> writes:
> What nonsense!
>    Granted there is no good world book of butterflies like, for 
> instance 
> Walker's Mammals of the World, but there are one or two that help 
> one get 
> oriented (e.g. Sbordoni & Forestiero, Butterflies of the World).
>     The majority of butterfly species have not had common names, 
> that is 
> names that folk naturalists know them by. Common names for 
> butterflies are 
> a very recent contrivance, invented for field guidebooks. I blame 
> the 
> meddling editors who want an "English" name to match each scientific 
> name 
> for a neat and symmetrical publication. Why do rare species need 
> common 
> names? Why do species of interest to only a handful of people need 
> common 
> names?
>     Note that the sites referred to by Dr. Zagatti list common 
> names. Some 
> of these are venerable, and almost all are over a century in usage. 
> That is 
> not true for North America! We have not had a naturalist population 
> comparable to that of Europe until very recently.
>     This is not a flame, it is a roar against anti-intellectualism! 
> Use the 
> proper name d*mm*t!
> ..................Chris Durden
> 
> At 07:11 PM 4/20/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> >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
> 
> 

________________________________________________________________
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