lep names

[John Shuey]

fnjjk1 at aurora.uaf.edu (Jim Kruse) wrote:

> 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.

.....

>
>
> > I like a good mystery - especially the mystery of life.
>
> I respectfully submit that I hope no one tries to solve any part of it
> for you.

I respectfully submit that these questions should be answered by people who have
actually seen material of the taxa in question (This used to be the role of first
reviser  - and in fact still is in all groups but birds - and now maybe
butterflies).  The single report I've seen from The Committee made it pretty
clear that they did not examined types, nor were they familiar with populations
of the questionable taxa in the field.  Hence, as best as I can tell, judgments
were made based on their views of the quality of the research, the researchers,
the publication the work was released in, etc...

At some level, all these are important factors to consider.  But the bottom line
is that Elmer Fudd could do a terrible job of describing a new taxon in some
obscure lep newsletter, and the taxon may indeed be valid and the name available
according to the Code.    Sinking the name in disgust via a Committee vote is
mare akin to an arbitrary action than a careful taxonomic review .

Is it too much to ask that before someone sinks a name, that they actually take a
look at what that name is supposed to represent??

Maybe that is indeed too much for some folks.

Cynically yours,
John Shuey




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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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