Fwd: Re: common names

[Chris J. Durden]

>Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 14:26:33 -0500
>To: mbpi at juno.com
>From: "Chris J. Durden" <drdn at mail.utexas.edu>
>Subject: Re: common names
>
>Now you seem to put words in my mouth? I never said anything about brain 
>complexity! You do not know what I think about brain complexity, memory 
>workaround methods or how we each overcome our natural handicaps.
>
>
>At 09:06 PM 4/20/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>>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."
>
>The method that works for me is look and see (like show and tell). If I 
>have seen a named picture of an organism I may remember its name the next 
>or (twentieth time) I see it. I do have to keep looking things up. I have 
>to see it because I am visually adept. After doing complete time in the 
>university system, I cannot sit through a lecture without falling asleep. 
>This is most embarrassing when I am the lecturer. People can tell me the 
>names of things but it does no good. I must see the thing and the name 
>before I can remember it. A thing has a name in every language. Some 
>languages may be more specific than others. Motyli in one language may be 
>butterflies and moths in another. A checkered skipper in one country may 
>have five names for distinct species in another country. That is why we 
>have scientific names. Most scientists have agreed to abide by 
>international conventions and rules for naming. A book in Japanese may be 
>of little use to us but we can look at the pictures, look at the numbers 
>for measurements and dates, and look at the scientific name to know what 
>is pictured and search elsewhere for more information.
>
>
>>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.
>
>I have done the dance memory myself, but tapes do not work for me and I do 
>not remember music or bird calls.
>
>>"Words" are meaningless, unless they have a frame of reference.  If you
>>don't know Urdu, it has no meaning (!)
>
>Words have many shades of meaning. Simply there are cognate sounds that 
>may have real or erroneous relationship to meaning. Indo-european 
>languages can often be partially read phonetically, especially if simple 
>description in the scientific literature. Why is papalotl the name for a 
>butterfly or moth in Nahuatl of the Aztecs, and papilio the name for 
>butterfly in Latin, and papillon the name for butterfly or moth in French. 
>Xochiquetzalpapalotl (literally - flower-plumed-serpent-butterfly) is the 
>specific common name in Nahuatl, La Llamadora (literally - 
>the-golden-banded) is the specific common name in Mexican Spanish, and 
>Two-tailed Tiger Swallowtail is the specific common name in American 
>English for *Pterourus (Jasoniades) multicaudatus* as it is known to 
>scientists throughout the world, or *Papilio multicaudatus* to retired 
>scientists who have not kept up with the latest developments in our 
>taxonomic knowledge.
>
>>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.
>
>That is correct. The name is like Bob or Jane. It tells you nothing about 
>the category named, and it is not supposed to. It is equivalent to a 
>unique species number but scientists have agreed through the ICZN that a 
>name is easier to work with than a number.
>
>
>>Children learn the names of dinosaurs and flowers through PICTURES or
>>SOUND or subtle nuances:  not words.
>
>Yes I think that is what I just said above. I agree, and I think adults 
>use the same method.
>
>>  The brain is far more complex than
>>you are willing to accede.
>
>We know very little about the brain. I certainly perceive far more than 
>there is scientific explanation for.
>
>
>>M.B. Prondzinski
>
>We would find it easier to learn the names of organisms if we had 
>guidebooks with good pictures with everything named. We do not yet. For 
>insects other than butterflies and maybe dragonflies the identification 
>manuals are without pictures of whole organisms for most of the species. 
>It takes a special mind to follow the arcane jargon in a key to grasses or 
>a key to beetles and construct a mental picture to recognize these things 
>in the field. I do not have such a mind and I need picture guides myself. 
>More than 95 percent of the organisms in North America are without 
>specific common names, have never been fully illustrated and have been 
>described only in the most minimal way. Take a cubic meter of habitat, 
>anywhere and start to try to identify every species you find and you will 
>end up with more difficult unknowns than knowns. These are not necessarily 
>new species. They are improperly documented species. In our culture there 
>are probably more experts familiar with the history of baseball and its 
>intricate details, than there are experts familiar with insects and their 
>specific diversity.
>................................Chris Durden



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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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