correct names

[Clay Taylor]

All -

    Ron's missive about scientific names vs. common names is a very logical
presentation of the theories being the naming systems, but there are still
some gaping holes in the defense.  When Bill Yule recently inquired about
the two scientific names (Polites coras vs. Polites peckius) for Peck's
Skipper (also called Yellow-Patch Skipper by some) , there was a thundering
silence from the scientific community for over a week.  Finally, the
question was answered in a roundabout way that concluded, in effect, that
there was disagreement as to who named the bug the first, and there were
still disagreements about which was the proper name.

    Doesn't sound all that much like "the only correct name" to me.

    I have learned the scientific names for many of the common butterflies
in my area - it isn't very hard.  However, it usually comes in handy only
when I read older butterfly literature or happen to be talking to an
entomologist who, at the moment, can't remember a butterfly's common name.
It helps to smooth out the flow of information - period.  Let's not turn it
into an "us against them" mentality.

Clay Taylor
Moodus, CT
ctaylor at att.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Gatrelle" <gatrelle at tils-ttr.org>
To: "Leps-l" <Leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 12:45 AM
Subject: correct names


> 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
>
>


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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