correct + coras/peckius

[Ron Gatrelle]

Clay Taylor wrote

snip    ....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.

Actually, I was going to answer that immediately but decided not to as I
undoubtedly post too much as it is. I left this to others. Chris Durden
gave a good generalized answer today. To answer the question, one has to be
familiar with all the taxonomic papers dirrectly on the subject of coras
vs. peckius. It is unfortunate that those who write the "guides" are nearly
always just quoting someone eles's opinion   which in turn was based on
some other's opinion.  In many ways I do not fault them for this. Taxonomy
is work and to up to speed on everything is tough.

Now, the phrase "correct name" as I used it to = scientific epithets, does
not apply here.  Coras vs. peckius is a technical question about which of
these  two taxonomically "available names" is the "valid name" for this
skipper.  This is a question of "nomenclatural correctness" - which is very
different than scientific IDs (as a category) being correct in opposition
to common names (as a catagory).

The changes we see in common names are a matter of personal whims. The
changes that are observed within correct names are dictated by 1) the rules
(Principles of Priority) of the ICZN as 2) applied to, and in conjunction
with, the best available science at the current time relative to organic
evolutionary hierarchical relationships. Here I have a bone to pick with
the "professionals" who seem to think they are "free" to choose what ever
scientific ID they want. See the ICZN glossary under names and then under
"valid".  A taxon only has one valid (nomenclaturally correct name). Now,
there are at times valid arguments among "experts" about which available
names should be employed - especially at the level of genus. But specific
and subspecific names should be fairly hard and fast once "pinned" down.
This is email and I see my frustration already at the communicative
limitations I am under. So I will quit here - for now.
Ron


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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