correct names

[Ron Gatrelle]

In a couple of recent posts I used the phrase "correct name" in application
to what had previously only been referred to as scientific names on the
group.  This got a rise out of a few folks so I thought I'd post this.

The reason it got a rise is that the meaning of this phrase is very clear
in two directions. First, it points to itself (scientific names) as
correct, and by virtue of that, secondarily points to common names as
somehow incorrect - which is obviously why those who use (sometimes
exclusively) common names got their feathers ruffled.

I chose that term because it is both accurate and sets common vs.
scientific name usage in the proper context. Some of those who employ
(exclusively) the usage of common names for organisms have given the
_impression_ that the two name groupings - scientific and common - are
equal. In other words it is simply that one faction chooses to use
scientific and another common. It doesn't matter, one or the other as they
are equal. That is the impression.

The reality is that common and scientific names are not equal in any way
shape or form. At birth I was given my proper name - Ronald Richard
Gatrelle. Over the decades I have also been given various nick names - bug
man, spider, dear, daddy etc. Yet, I only have one _correct_  name. It is
on my birth certificate, drivers license, Social Security card, marriage
license, on court summons for jury duty, my will, and will be on my death
certificate, and tomb stone.

The following sums up how and why scientific epithets are, like my correct
name, the only correct names of organisms . It is a short excerpt from a
scientific paper I wrote. The subject matter of the article had nothing to
do with common names or common vs. scientific names. It had to do with
scientific epithets vs. other scientific epithets and the rules governing
such. Here is the quote.
    "Scientific names are not really names. They are technical labels which
are affixed to organisms to distinguish and organize them according to
their present relationships with near relatives as attained by their past
evolutionary path.  Each unique identifying label (name) is affixed to a
specific population and can not be moved by subsequent workers to apply to
another population of a different evolutionary station - be it another
species or subspecies. The linguistic identity of an organism is understood
by these Latinized scientific labels. The biological identity of these same
organisms is understood by the designation of a type specimen."

At this point I intend to use the phrase "correct name" rather than
"scientific name" in  future posts - as these are one in the same.  I would
not be disappointed if others did likewise. I am sure the other side will
object much like the Pro Life people were put on the defensive by the
"other sides" decision to call their movement Pro Choice. ... What, you are
against freedom of choice?  ... What, are you  against correct epithets?

Ron

PS  Since I use common names myself, I have no objection to common names
except that, 1) there needs to be a whole lot more of them - one for each
subspecific biological entity, and 2) that it be recognized that an
organism's correct name and its common name(s) (Camberwell Beauty/Mourning
Cloak) are on two entirely different scales. I also state, as I have in the
past, that those who insist on common names _only_ are part of a dumbed
down movement away from Lepidopterology and being lepidopterists.



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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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