Fw: Re: common names

[Ron Gatrelle]

Anyone

How will "standardizing" common names work to draw people to study and
appreciate butterflies?  If we put a bunch of cute common names on fly
larvae will people be drawn to study maggots? People have always been drawn
to butterflies, birds, and flowers by their incredible natural beauty not
by their human imparted names. The reverse is true with snakes, rats, bats,
and roaches.

Miss World becomes such because she is a for real babe. It does not matter
if here name is Blob Liftherfat.  But if miss Easy Honey is as ugly as the
day is long, she will loose despite her name.

> It worked for birds.  No "it" didn't. Birds worked for birds. This
statement says  that if birders had not affixed a lot of pleasant, everyday
names to birds no one would have been interested in them or given a rats
behind what happened to them?  No, I am wrong here. It was not said that
the establishment of common names alone drew people (who otherwise would
have never gotten involved) into birding. It was said that had they not
affixed "standardized" names etc...  Funny, they already had "standardized"
names - as do lepidoptera - thorough systematic taxonomy as regulated by
the ICZN.

Reasonableness?  Common names are fine as such. They are nice, fun,
pleasant, ok, preferred by most in everyday communication. However, they
have nothing to do with reason (intellectual wisdom). There is a problem
though. Those who are overemphasizing and overusing common names are also,
at least implying, that scientific names are in some obscure manner
counterproductive or even detrimental to "the cause." Together with the
fact that these same people don't like subspecies (nearly all subspecies
are now lumped under their species common name in the popular lit.), they
are greatly assisting in the dumbing down of the awareness of the
evolutionarily unique segregates and populations that are well delineated
in the scientific literature. Literature that is obscure to both the
unwashed masses and the new butterfly hobbyists/enthusiasts.
RG

PS  Again, this is editorial material and is not intended to have any
reflection on the Brodkin's in any way. They have just as much right to
post what ever they want as anyone one else. I know their intents are
honorable and pure to work for the benefit of butterflies and moths. Thus,
I value all that they DO while differing, in some areas, with what they
say. Any difference between us in philosophy or methodology does not mean
there is any difference between us in character. -- Character being what we
really are, while reputation is only what others think we are. Ditto
cheers.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hank & Priscilla Brodkin" <hankb at theriver.com>
To: <LEPS-L at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: common names


> Lepers -
>
> A little reasonableness here.  Use of standardized common names is being
> promoted in order to draw more folks into the study and appreciation of
> butterflies, thus hopefully leading to support of their conservation.
> It worked for birds.
> Some day most of the "great unwashed" will also see the benefit of
> learning the scientific names.  In the meantime, chill!
>
> Cheers!
> --
>              Hank & Priscilla Brodkin
>           Carr Canyon, Cochise County, AZ
>              SouthEast Arizona Butterfly Association
>           http://www.naba.org/chapters/nabasa/home.html
>          "Butterflies of Arizona - a Photographic Guide"
>     by Bob Stewart, Priscilla and Hank Brodkin - due August 2001
>           http://pages.zdnet.com/hbrodkin/butterfliesofarizona/
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
>


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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