common names

[Cris Guppy or Aud Fischer]

As I point out in the Butterflies of BC book (references are cited in the
book), "Admiral" is not derived from "Admirable", that was an error
perpetrated by Ford in his book on butterflies. The Latin name of the genus,
Limenitis, means "harbour keeper". The common name was used before the Latin
name, so it suggests that Limenitis is derived from the common name. An
naval Admiral can be though of as a "harbour keeper" or guardian of a
harbour, especially back in the days of sail when guarding harbours was a
major naval function. That common English folk would have noted that
Admirals, of both types, guard a location and dart out to intercept
intruders and investigate their identity. Hence the use of Admiral for the
butterfly. It will never be possible to prove this hypothesis, but it is
better than any other I have heard.

Cris Guppy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenelm Philip" <fnkwp at aurora.alaska.edu>
To: <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 2:58 AM
Subject: Re: common names


>
> > 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
>
>
>


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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