- of joanae and names

[Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX]

The joanae posting reminded me of an issue which I have given some thought
to over the years. The issue is perhaps best illustrated by a view from
another butterfly researcher. Said person who asked to remain unidentified
posed a question about what gave certain authors the authority to make
[name] changes and ignore published evidence.  Many other people with
butterfly interests have expressed some frustration and confusion about what
the "correct" names of some butterflies are. Here is my view on this matter:
- name changes are not the same as publishing a taxonomic opinion or
interpretation
- there is an international code of conventions (="rules") which provides an
evolving set of criteria for  making decisions about the consistent use of
names
- publishing a paper or book or putting some information on a web site that
uses the name combination Papilio machaon joanae, for example, is not a name
change. It is a stated opinion or interpretation of taxonomic rank for the
validly published and available name joanae. Similarly, ignoring the taxon
joanae is nothing more than an opinion or interpretation. Such an action
does not make the name invalid nor unavailable under the rules and does not
obligate anyone else to agree with said opinion or interpretation
- it is my opinion that people have the right to share and publish their
opinions and interpretations related to both names and taxonomic rank
- other people have the right to share and publish differing opinions and
interpretations
So do not worry about all the alleged name changes over the years.  Most of
them are not name changes at all.  Until such time as sufficient convincing
evidence or rationale to convince everyone about the "correctness" of a
particular name; different authors will continue to quite properly use their
preferred name.  It would however be helpful in communicating with
non-specialists if authors also provided at least some of the other
taxonomic ranks used for the same organism and other names used in recent
literature.  One thing that has created a lot of 'confusion' , at least in
North American butterfly names, is our history of various authors who have
presented their opinions and interpretations without explanation, without
supporting data and without any kind of rationale that would allow others to
understand why they have presented the view that they do. This continent has
its share of taxonomic opinions that are nothing more than taxonomy by rank
speculation, taxonomy by specious assumption and taxonomy by lack of data.
- in Canada there is no law that says I have to use a particular butterfly
name or taxonomic rank just because someone else "said so".
Finally, we do not know everything about the biological relationships
between butterflies. curious people will continue to investigate past and
present taxonomic opinions and continue to present new information and
ideas. It should come as no surprise that more research will yield still
more proposed "changes" in the future.  People who want to preserve the
status quo are living in a fools paradise. The world does not work that way;
not the 'natural' world and not the 'human' world. And really finally this
time; do not worry about people who throw 'hissy fits' when confronted by an
opinion different than theirs. They have the right to be intolerant of other
opinions if they wish.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Norbert Kondla  P.Biol., RPBio.
Forest Ecosystem Specialist, Ministry of Environment
845 Columbia Avenue, Castlegar, British Columbia V1N 1H3
Phone 250-365-8610
Mailto:Norbert.Kondla at gems3.gov.bc.ca
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca
 
 
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
 
   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
 
   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl