(Fwd) Names . . .

Mon Apr 23 16:08:38 EDT 2001

I liked this post the last time. I still like it.
Could you send it a little bit earlier next time ?

Guy.

-----Original Message-----
From: DR. JAMES ADAMS <JADAMS at em.daltonstate.edu>
To: leps-l at lists.yale.edu <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Date: maandag 23 april 2001 20:00
Subject: (Fwd) Names . . .

Dear listers,

I saved this message the last time this discussion came up, 
assuming it would be useful again.  I was right.

I will also add that, although Ron has included some stuff I 
strongly agree with, I disagree that common names are in any way 
associated with dumbing down.  You can just as easily apply a 
new common name to a new taxon as you can a new scientific 
name to a new taxon.  I guarantee you that Jeffrey Glassburg 
(excuse me if I spelled it incorrectly) is out there ready to put a 
common name on any newly recognized species.

Here's the old version of the message . . . it includes some 
references to other conversations at the time, but the overall 
meaning and sentiment are clear.
________________

            Well, I was going to stay out of this discussion this
round, as I have had a lot to say in past rounds of this discussion,
but I couldn't help myself.

          Just a few points:

1.  It bothers me to hear people talk about "resistance to" or "fear
of" learning "scientific" names.  I *do* think part of the problem is
some of us scientists; we need to be willing and open to the general
public, and willing to use common names when communicating 
with people
who don't know the scientific names.  To call them "Latin" names,
however, is a joke.  "Latinized" maybe.  Alright, alright, some of the
names are well-thought-through latin representations of something 
that
has to do with the actual creature being described, but some have
their roots in other languages (like Greek, etc.), and just as many
are simply creative mind-wisps (the hymenopteran genera "Aha" 
and
"Ohno" come to mind -- look at Doug Yanega's website and you'll 
see a
huge sampling of scientific names that are far from being either 
Latin
or scientific).  However, I do think that the general public can learn
these names easily if we just look at them as another set of 
names. 
The flower people learn them simply because those are the names 
that
the flowers have.  Well, gee whiz, guess what?  The same is true 
for
*all* scientific names of *all* organisms.  They have the name -- it
just needs to be grasped with enthusiasm.  Unfortunately, maybe 
Anne
is right and we need to teach people this early.  If scientific names
are presented in an appropriate environment from an enthusiastic
presenter, people would be much less afraid of the names and 
much more
willing to learn.

2.  About pronunciation.  Ken was right -- don't worry about it!! 
Give it your best shot, and even if you are not technically correct,
if you are able to pronounce the individual letters you should be able
to produce a pronunciation that is recognizable to virtually everyone.
As for those scientists who demand precise enunciation, I say
"pblpblpblfft"!  I like knowing what the exact pronunciation is
(although this also may differ in different parts of the world, as was
indicated before), but am thrilled when anyone is interested in
learning these names.

3.  As for stability.  I think the point has clearly been made about
communication across the face of the globe.  Common names 
simply are
not useful for this.  I truly *do* believe that the English speaking
world is very ethnocentric in terms of demanding common name 
usage. 
This is nothing short of inconsiderate and rude to the rest of the
world (I have news for you -- English speakers are still the minority
in the world!).  Although it may be possible to make common 
names
reasonably stable in one language in one location, clearly it is
impossible to do this worldwide.  On the other hand, this is exactly
the point of scientific names.  Okay, so there is also instability in
the scientific names, but each day progress is made toward more
stability.  I do have news for everyone -- *no* set of names, common
or scientific, is ever going to be completely stable.  Don't forget,
humans came up with the names in the first place, and as long as
humans are involved in the process (which is forever) there will be
differences in opinion.  [Not only that, but as Ron points out in this 
round, the taxa themselves are, of course, continuing to change.]  
All that aside, scientific names do allow you
to reach a much wider audience, and also indicate relatedness 
between
organisms as has been discussed previously.  Don't get me wrong, 
I do
use common names for butterflies and for a lot of moths, and some 
of
these indicate relatedness appropriately as well.  It is important to
know these as well, especially if you want to teach someone the
scientific names that go with species for which they already know 
the
common names.  Understand, though, that common names can 
also be
misleading in terms of relationships.  The Great-Spangled Fritillary,
the Variegated Fritillary, all the Lesser Fritillaries, although all
nymphalids, are reasonably closely related but certainly not
congeneric.  Throw in the Gulf Fritillary (at least in a different
subfamily) and the Duke of Burgundy Fritillary (the only metalmark 
in
Europe) and you can see what I mean.

What to make of all of this?  Don't be frightened of learning 
*either* set of names.  Learning scientific names can be fun, but
doesn't automatically put you above your common-name using 
public, and
knowing common names doesn't make you any less scientific.  

That's it (hopefully) . . .

             James

Dr. James K. Adams
Dept. of Natural Science and Math
Dalton State College
213 N. College Drive
Dalton, GA  30720
Phone: (706)272-4427; fax: (706)272-2533
U of Michigan's President James Angell's 
  Secret of Success: "Grow antennae, not horns"

------- End of forwarded message -------

Dr. James K. Adams
Dept. of Natural Science and Math
Dalton State College
213 N. College Drive
Dalton, GA  30720
Phone: (706)272-4427; fax: (706)272-2533
http://www.daltonstate.edu/galeps/  (Georgia Lepidoptera)
U of Michigan's President James Angell's 
  Secret of Success: "Grow antennae, not horns"

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

   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 