common names

[Ron Gatrelle]

I hope I communicate this properly. A complaint I have long had is that our
defining of organisms (by what ever mode) is wrong before we ever start
because we are wanting to "fix" a name (identity) to a living thing that
will eventually evolve to have nothing to do with what it was "fixed" as.
Regardless of the type of names used - it is absolutely impossible to have
stability (stagnation) with evolving things - including language itself.

--Linguistic purists hate slang - verbal subspecies birthed in subculture.
In the sixties to say "the bomb" meant only one thing - nuclear bomb. "The
bomb" today means a lot of fun, a great looking boy or girl, hit song etc.
etc. --

If we all had been living for the last 200 million years, at what point
would we have changed the common name of the organism from dinosaur to
bird. To me the "stability" factor has no bearing on the use of common or
scientific names - this is not a stability issue to me. In fact, the names
_need_ to change. If there were virtually no change in the great mass of
common or scientific names  over, say, the next 50 years, that would tell
me no new knowledge was being discovered!

Spring Azure sufficed when we thought there was only one in N.A. A new
common name is Helicta Satyr. No one wants to use this. By not doing so a
whole newly recognized eastern N.A species, and its three subspecies, are
being ignored. To continue to use only Georgia Satyr and ignore ("for
stability") Helicta Satyr, Miami Helicta, Northern (or New Jersey) Helicta
is absurd. Why don't we just still use only Spring Azure and forget about
Holly Azure, Appalachian Azure, and the not even yet described Cherry Gall
Azure. We have an as yet undescribed species whose common name is already
in use - but a species with three subspecies that is ignored.

My beef with the common names movement is that it genders less knowledge
not more. (Common names may indeed gender more general interest but not
knowledge - especially since the Gurus of this are against subspecies being
given common names.). This is strictly a knowledge issue with me. Common
names have a definite place - with beginners and everyday entomological
communication. But they are an unarguably a dumbed down, generic version of
the technical delineations provided by systematics - where names MUST
change as knowledge changes. helicta

The perceived "shortcomings" in systematic taxonomy are actually reflective
of the strength of systematics.  This is because  they are not shortcomings
at all - when recognized that taxonomic names are only temporary labels on
evolving organisms. My great complaint with many taxonomists is the way
this discipline is treated as a fixed or hard science rather than the
living subjective science that it really is. This is about _evolution_
CHANGE.  Life is not unstable, it just looks that why. The systematic study
of evolving life is not unstable it just looks that way. How wonderful and
exciting it is. How boring a stagnate world would be.

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gochfeld" <gochfeld at EOHSI.RUTGERS.EDU>
To: <stanlep at extremezone.com>; <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: common names


> Stan's point is a clear exposition of the problem. Scientific names
> serve two masters which accounts for the imperfections. When I did the
> comparison of names from the 1890's to 1990's for scientific names, I
> found that although the "name" (a combination of generic and species)
> had usually changed, in fact, the species name was often unchanged. Thus
> as species get assigned to different taxa (as they often do), the
> combinations change.  In some areas of systematics, they report "comb
> nov." to indicate that it is not a new species, merely a new
> combination.
>
> But, whatever the explanation, whether the names are really unstable or
> as Stan suggests,  merely appear to be unstable they have communication
> shortcomings just like as common names.
>
> Mike Gochfeld
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    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