US standardized name reference

Stanley A. Gorodenski stanlep at extremezone.com
Thu Jul 5 21:51:49 EDT 2001


It was written:
> Ron, Wanda is a nice lady who was trying to help you. Can't you lighten
> up? 
 
but then then this statement followed:
> Blessed be all of you, scholars and saints, on this fine morning, and
> may your bile flow sweetly into its proper channels, attend to your
> digestion, and quit clogging this list.

Albeit, Ron may have gotten a bit heavy and I am sure Wanda is a nice
lady, but there seems to be a bit of a contradiction between the
question, and this subsequent statement. 

As for:
> and if we don't like the scientists' names, they will fade away like
> morning dew.

They may fade away in the minds of 'we', which I take to mean the
proponents of common names, but they will hardly fade away in science
simply because someone whimsically does not like them.  If they change
at all, it will be the result of advances in science, i.e., taxonomy,
genetics, systematics, species concepts (PhyloCode), etc.  

I was myself perplexed by the ambiguity of the abbreviation LBJ, "little
brown job", and how anyone could defend this naming convention. 
However, I do agree with the one statement:
>Just go on using both sets of names, setting a good example to the
>others, and ignore the (vitriol snipped). 
This is a hobby to some for enjoyment, and it should remain an
enjoyment.

Finally, I really don't see the point of butterflies not caring what we
call them. I should hope so.  It would certainly slow things down if
butterflies had to be personally consulted before we assigned a name to
them!  (-: 

Stan

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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


More information about the Leps-l mailing list