Papilio joanae

[Mark Walker]

Great discussion - much of which I enjoy without having strong opinions.  In
fact, as most are probably aware, my previously posted 2 cents worth was
grossly off subject anyway - taking no position whatsoever on the issue of
splitting vs. lumping - only asking a few questions that I find interesting.
Obviously, as an amateur, I have no vested interest in taking either side
regardless.  I do tend to be a splitter, but this is only on account of my
bias towards recognizing the variation I witness in nature - it is not a
scientifically based opinion.
 
As far as this splitting being driven by my propensity for collecting -
well, I sample wherever I go - regardless of nomenclature.  Current
taxonomic debate has NO bearing on my collecting behavior whatsoever.  It's
the individual that gets mounted - not a category from a checklist.
 
My position, if I even have one on this subject, is that I find much of this
scientific debate to be irrelevant to me the amateur naturalist.  I will
make reference to the creatures I encounter according to whatever the
current scientific thinking is regarding binomial or trinomial nomenclature.
In fact, one might note that I rarely use trinomial nomenclature in my field
reports - even when they are often widely recognized.  I am comfortable
leaving these taxonomic decisions on the plates of those to whom it matters.
While I am religious about labeling, I never include taxonomic information.
Whatever it will be called at them time it is studied (and I'm hopeful that
my collection will some day be of value to science) is good enough for me.
 
Meanwhile, in the field, the bugs fly - not caring much for what the people
choose to call them.  The names change, the bugs remain no less fascinating,
and the true diversity of nature continues to make itself available for
viewing by the truly adventurous.
 
There were some excellent points made both by James Kruse and Doug Yanega,
some which I'd like to respond to:
 
Doug wrote:
 
>
> As a taxonomist, I suggest to you the root of the scientific
> perspective
> boils down largely to this:
>
> Is there any legitimate need or value to placing a FORMAL
> NAME on every
> geographic variant of a species?
 
Just for the record, I actually agree with the science behind this position.
 
Later, he wrote:
 
> to all the geographic variants whose diagnostic features are solely
> biochemical? I think not. Many of us, butterfly enthusiasts
> included, would
> raise a stink if (for example) someone were to describe, say,
> 15 different
> subspecies of the Luna Moth or Buckeye based purely on
> genetics.
 
According to the logic I'm presenting, this would be particularly obnoxious.
I suppose a fallacy of my logic is that my approach to classification might
be based solely on (human) visual differences alone - and I know there are
many who would take exception to that concept.  Still, what value does
classification have independent of the human senses?  I guess one of the
biggest differences between myself and most of the folks subscribing to this
listserve is that I care less about understanding my world and mostly about
participating in it.
 
James Kruse wrote:
 
> I hope Mark Walker won't take this as a flame attack on him
> personnally. I
> try to attack and defend ideas, not people.
 
Nope - I understand.  As I said - it's raining, and I'm home at last.
 
James also responded to my following comment:
 
>
> > At the end of the day, I still see the propensity for lumping to be
> > anti-productive.
>
> Amazing. And the profusion of ill-defined splitting of probable clinal
> intermediates in obscure non-refereed "journals" or
> self-published fliers
> is somehow more productive? My jaw hurts from bouncing off the floor.
 
Well, I'm sorry about the jaw thing.  First of all, I was speaking of the
"propensity" for lumping - that is the tendency of some to bias towards
lumping (and there are those who do so) - not the scientific decision to
lump.  Once again, I'm not placing a higher value on either lumping or
splitting - and to be fair, perhaps I should have asked similar questions
and implied similar criticisms to those who are biased towards splitting.
 
My comment above is based on my belief that a tendency for lumping might
result in a loss of data.  As I've said before, filtering is good only if
you don't like noise.  Personally, I find the world noisy - and prefer noisy
field guides over filtered field guides.
 
Of course it is not scientifically productive to have potentially dozens of
differing nomenclatures.  A unified view, in this context, is certainly more
productive.  OTOH, I use dozens of field guides when I prepare for going
into the field.  As you well know, almost none of these concur in terms of
taxonomic nomenclature.  This I find fascinating, as well as data rich, and
it has actually helped and stimulated me significantly in my endeavors.  I
tend to look and sample everywhere (except Nat'l Parks, of course).  In
other words, I've found that this historical lack of unity actually helps me
to be more productive in the field.  This was my point, and I think it's a
separate point from the interpreted one that assisted the gravitational
forces acting upon your jaw };>)
 
 
Thanks for a good time.
 
Mark Walker.
yep - still raining.
>
 
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
 
   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
 
   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl