Fw: Re: (Fwd) Names . . .

mbpi at juno.com mbpi at juno.com
Mon Apr 23 19:33:25 EDT 2001


Now this saved email (from before my time on this listserv), says EXACTLY
what I was TRYING to say, when I first initiated this never-ending
debate.  I NEVER said I was a "proponent of common names;" what I DID say
was that I wanted "more information," be it Family name or a place of
reference (moth or butterfly, indigenous or foreign) to which I could
attach/relate the scientific name in my realm of the world in which I
live...so I COULD find out more about what species was being talked
about, if I was so inclined (!)  That fact was quite simply IGNORED, and
worse:  implicated as my having "an agenda" (!)

I have never seen a listserv where the simplest commentaries get so
convoluted and bent out of context from the premise of the original post.
 I can only surmise that the most vociferous of you don't really "read"
what is written, but rather are lurking in the ether, ready to "shoot
from the hip" at the slightest mention of anything that diverges from
your self-imbued and erroneous criteria for what makes a person "smart"
or "dumb," ie. professional or amateur.

And I agree with the attached message that just because a person chooses
to use a "common name," doesn't make them a contributor to the "dumbing
down" of others.  I'd say it makes them more accommodating and
accessible, ie. willing to impart information to those who aren't as
knowledgeable in scientific nomenclature.  Don't "assume" that someone
who uses common names is ignorant of scientific names.  That truly IS an
"eliticist attitude."

Mary Beth Prondzinski

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 22:08:38 +0200 Guy_VdP at t-online.de (Guy Van de Poel &
A. Kalus) writes:
> 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 
>  
> 

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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


More information about the Leps-l mailing list