Fw: lep names (2nd post try)

[Ron Gatrelle]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Gatrelle" <gatrelle at tils-ttr.org>
To: <fnjjk1 at aurora.uaf.edu>; "Leps-l" <Leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 2:33 AM
Subject: Re: lep names


 From Ron Gatrelle,
Since I do not want to put my 2 cents in via HTML text (i.e. a different
font which not all on the list could pick up), I am going to insert my name
before my interjections.

 ----- Original Message -----
From: "James J Kruse" <fnjjk1 at aurora.uaf.edu>
To: "leps" <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: lep names


Greetings:

I am not sure where disagreeing with the idea of subspecies became
anti-conservation, anti-biodiversity, and now, anti-free thinking, but I
find it a little disturbing.

Ron. Your right, disagreement as such is not the problem. The
anti-conservation angle, for me, would come from my understanding of the
legal requirements that must be meet before an organism can receive legal
protection.  Thus, without a "name" based on some published research, it
becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to get the courts to provide
conservation to an organism that scientifically does not exist. Lets
remember that virtually all the endangered leps are subspecies. For example
there is an effort right now to provide a subspecific name for the eastern
US pop of Speyeria idalia to reinforce its need for protection. (By the
way, the eastern US pop of idalia already has a name - that name is idalia.
This is because the type locality is New York! Thus, if anything is to be
named it would have to be the western idalia pops.)

Ron. It is anti-biodiversity simply because it implies that very little or
no significant diversity exists below the specific level. Therefore, there
must be lots of Mission Blues because it and icaroides are the same
species. Do we really want to only have Icaricia icarioides - period?
Without the recognition of subspecific taxa diversity is obviously greatly
diminished.  Straw man says: Well, we need to have the name icarioides
missionensis because "that" taxa needs to be protected. Oh, really? But it
can be decided that Anthocharis midea midea, which only exists on the
coastal islands of SC and Ga is the same A. midea as everywhere else (see
Scott 1986 - By the way after I described A. m. texana in 1998 Scott wrote
me and said it looked like midea midea really was subspecifically
distinct.) (Midea's islands are under tremendous pressure from resort
development.) Or Neonympha helicta dadeensis is just an areolata and should
be taxonomically ignored even though it is now rarer than P.
aristodemus -subspecies- ponceanus in south Florida?

Ron. It is anti-free thinking because thought can only digest what is
presented to it. Information is censored by simply not being made avilable,
there is therefore no opportunity to "think about it". There is a problem
because the censorship of subspecies is so wide spread in much of the new
popular literature that only the old timers and professionals know where to
find them in the literature. Stifle information and cognative thought is
automatically stopped and opinion is on your side. If Hitler had won and
wrote the history --  What holocaust?  Straw man asks: There is a whole
species called Neonympha helicta? And it has a unique subspecies south of
Miami called dadeensis? I've never read of this in any book or on any list.
Where can I find out about this? In TTR 1:8, 2000.

>  On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, John Shuey wrote:
>
>The basic problem with this idea is the lack of a clear consensus of
>what defines a species.  I think this is indeed a basic problem that
> will not be resolved such that everyone will be happy.
>

Exactly! So, if we are unsure about what a species is, what is a
subspecies??

Ron. Actually, there is no "problem" in defining a species. Species are
self evident as weighed against certain pre-set critera (see Gatrelle TTR
2:2, 2000) The problem is totally in defining when a segregate of a species
has evolved to the point that it should now be considered a full species in
its own right.
One of the real problems in lepidopteran taxonomy today is that specific
and subspecific taxonomy are being measured by the same means and methods.
These (ICZN validated ) rungs on the evolutional ladder are assessed very
differently (see TTR 2:2, 2000).

> Choosing a solution and force feeding it to the world inhibits the
> creative process.  A good example would be the many new subspecies
>described in Ron Gatrelle's Taxonomic Review.


Ron. It is almost everything we have published including the species
ismeria, helicta, idella, and using Dr. Johnson's genus Deciduphagus. It is
not Review, it is Report (The Taxonomic Review will be our strip club).
Also this is not Ron Gatrelle's TTR. In 2000 the authors were Harry
Pavulaan (2), David Wright (2), Dr. Gustavo Canals (Argentina) (1), Dr.
Kurt Johnson (2), Dr. Chunsheng Wu (China) (1), Dr. Charles Selman (1), Ron
Leuschner (2), Laurence Crabtree (1), and Ron Gatrelle (2). Number of
papers in (  ). Several of the above were co-authors. In 2000 we published
11 new species, afirmed 1 other species,
2 subspecies, 1 major life history, a 10 year study on host association, A
family level key to genera, and more - all available on CD for only $25. at
www.tils-ttr.org .

 Okay. A subspecies is an example of the creative process. I'll buy that.
 The rest is an unfortunate view of what a name committee is doing: that
 this "conservative" (oh dear, W. may be behind it) name committee is
 trying to suppress these creative subspecies ideas and suppress even the
 very act of thinking, "burying names for all times" as if wiping out
 the actual populations by the process and thus doing a "disservice to
 curious minds" and annointing themselves as the "better minds" (- the
 sound of black helicopters slowing... then hovering...)...Wow.

 Jeeeez, its a LIST of names! No one is trying to hide the diversity of
 the planet by creating this list.

Ron. It is more than "a" list _of (inclusive)_ names. It is a pattern of
lists with scores of  _ omitted (excluded)_ valid-according-to-the-ICZN
names. No, "they" are just putting forth their own thoughts and views.
Right now the lumpers are on the top of the pecking order. Of course, might
always thinks it right.

So, who wants to do the list now? Ha ha!

 Ron. The International Lepidoptera Survey that's who - at www.tils-ttr.org
And when you visit the TILS web site, subscribe to TTR. You too may not
agree with everything we have published but, like John Shuey said, it will
be some of the more thought stimulating taxonomy you've encountered.  We
have several Big Name subscribers, but they shall remain unnamed. Some
might not want everyone to know they actually pay for (or contribute to)
TTR. We are grateful for all our subscribers - those who agree and
disagree.
>
> -- snip--
>
> Jim Kruse
> - silent for almost two years, now awakened by subspecies to post again,
> and again, and again.... who speaks for the lurkers?
>
 Ron Gatrelle
    - talks to much. The only problem with these discussions is that we
can't do it around pizza and pop (or beer if you like). Just because there
are strong willed and opinionated people expressing themselves does not
mean any of us are "mean spirited." If we were all in one room I hope we
could also laugh at ourselves as well as shout at each other.  Of course,
I'm one of those people who likes superfluity, hyperbole, and debate! What
great sport! (Second of course to College of Charleston basketball - and
WWF.)
>


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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