common names

[Kenelm Philip]

> 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?!

	Learning scientific names _or_ common names can be accomplished
with field guides and reference books. The same amount of information
about the organism is required to assign the correct scientific name as
to assign the correct common name.

	Also, common names aren't always very helpful. For example, today
I saw a 'traurnitsa' in Fairbanks. I doubt very many people found that a
useful identification! That's the Russian common name for _Nymphalis
antiopa_, which North Americans call a Mourning Cloak, and Britishers
call a Camberwell Beauty. None of these common names carries the addition-
al information in the genus name _Nymphalis_.

> 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."

	When I moved to Fairbanks in 1965, I was immediately confronted
with butterflies (and moths) I had never seen before. Furthermore, there
were no local gurus whose brains I could pick. So here is _my_ step-by-
step method: Locate the reference books covering the fauna of your region
(and ideally a larger area so you can relate the region's species to their
relatives in other regions). Collect (or photograph or observe or what-
ever you do to encounter actual arganisms in the field. Compare the
organisms with the information (pictures, genitalia, keys, text information,
etc.) in the books until you have learned the local fauna. When this is
done, you will know the scientific names (if you _want_ to), or the common
names of the fauna of your region. If you run into problems, visit a
major museum and talk with a specialist.

	If your region of choice is elsewhere, then you'll be limited to
book-learning, and you may have some surprises if you should ever actually
visit that region.  :-)

> 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 character-
> istics of the individual being described.

	And what does the word "Monarch' tell you about the characteristics
of that butterfly? Or 'White Admiral'? (It's mainly black, and has nothing
to do with the Navy. 'Admiral' is a contraction of 'Admirable', I gather.)
Also, although some species are indeed named after the original collector,
they are _not_ named after the describer--and most are named after neither
of those.

	The scientific name does not _have_ to tell you about the species
in itself. It is merely an index to the literature. It was the _pre-Linnean_
nomenclature that involved descriptive phrases--sometimes I think that
many people would really like to throw out the Linnean system and go back
to long descriptive phrases...

	But remember one thing--Leps-L is an _international_ list. If you
want to be North American parochial, by all means use North American Eng-
lish common names. But European and Asian and South American members will
find your postings unintelligible. Out of courtesy to 'foreign' members
(who, of course, think that _we_ are the foreigners) you should use
scientific names whenever you are talking to the entire list. That may be
'elitist', but it's also appreciated by non-North American members (except
Britishers, who would really like us all to use _their_ common names).

	Finally, if you really want to _learn_ about your species, you will
need to know the scientific names just to access the literature. And that's
why reference books have indices...

							Ken Philip
fnkwp at uaf.edu




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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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